The very possibility of racial healing and coming together as a country where race isn’t a barrier but an afterthought… is totes racist, dontchaknow!
Critical Race Theory is basically Max Horkeimer’s “Critical Theory” viewed through a “racial lens” and not a “class lens”. Critical Theory has three basic core tenets:
“It must provide an account of what is wrong with existing social arrangements, identify the agents of change (in classical Marxist thinking, this would be the revolutionary proletariat), and provide achievable aims and standards against which these agents can judge their efforts.”
It assumes that there is a “system of oppression” from one race/class that oppressed the other “race(s)/class(es)” that must be overthrown via revolutionary action. Anything other than “revolutionary action” is considered supporting the “oppressors”. In other words, via the lens o’ race, if something isn’t “antiracist” that destroys “racism” which is the totality of society, then it is “racist”. The very possibility that society isn’t fundamentally racist at its root and that racial healing or racial equality can come about via the “system” is unpossible to the Critical Race Theorist.
“But Critical Race Theory is just a legal theory” the refrain has become, “and isn’t about pedagogy and education!!1!” Funny, then, how many primary texts exist that, by their very titles, state otherwise. Case in point: “Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education”, edited by Marvin Lynn and Adrienne D. Dixson.
Remember, though! Critical Race Theory "isn't in schools!"
This book is a gold mine of Critical Race Theory thought and basically reveals every lie its supporters are trying to tell about it. pic.twitter.com/TJfHOr1MSA
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
For example, Critical Race Theory is apparently an "intersectional discourse" and relies upon "praxis" (i.e., is Marxian). pic.twitter.com/cisbxSEwpc
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
Critical Race Theory developed to reject traditional civil rights discourse and to remove neutrality from the law (i.e., be racist on purpose in law) as a result because progressive race activists and neo-Marxists weren't always getting their way. pic.twitter.com/q3B5iA2pig
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
Apparently, Critical Race Theory thinks California is too conservative. Lmao! pic.twitter.com/X8xzj3nEQq
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
This paragraph (by Richard Delgado) tells us what Critical Race Theory looks like in education: learning how to apply racial Critical Theory to everything. Also, it's Hegelian. pic.twitter.com/JM248GCQ2O
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
Why would education researchers need "adequate grounding in the field" if it's not in education? Why would Richard Delgado indicate interest in writing a book on Critical Race Theory that's accessible to high school students of not to bring it into high schools? pic.twitter.com/2ChHOZ5q0A
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
This is a hell of a paragraph used as a means to admit (proudly) that Critical Race Theory isn't scientific or logical at all. pic.twitter.com/MuenEd66yK
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
Along with "Space Traders," this kind of stuff should lead us to believe that the progenitor of Critical Race Theory, Derrick Bell, might have been crazy. This is very similar to the stuff of paranoid schizoidia. Either way, it's what Critical Race Theory is partially based on. pic.twitter.com/BMu5xSXFag
— James Lindsay, intentionally unendurable intellect (@ConceptualJames) June 24, 2021
One of the long-standing attack on private property rights, and on human rights in general, has been the move to grant “rights” to nature. Now, there is a move to make the “violation” of such rights punishable by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and put it on the same footing as genocide. In other words, it makes “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts” the equivalent of what the Nazi regime did.
“Legal experts from across the globe have drawn up a “historic” definition of ecocide, intended to be adopted by the international criminal court to prosecute the most egregious offences against the environment.
“The draft law, unveiled on Tuesday, defines ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.
“The Stop Ecocide Foundation initiative comes amid concerns that not enough is being done to tackle the climate and ecological crisis.
“If adopted by the ICC’s members, it would become just the fifth offence the court prosecutes – alongside war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression – and the first new international crime since the 1940s when Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials.”
And the intent is overtly totalitarian in nature.
“Prof Philippe Sands QC, of University College London, who co-chaired the panel that spent the past six months hammering out the definition, said: ‘The four other crimes all focus exclusively on the wellbeing of human beings. This one of course does that but it introduces a new non-anthropocentric approach, namely putting the environment at the heart of international law, and so that is original and innovative.
“‘For me the single most important thing about this initiative is that it’s part of that broader process of changing public consciousness, recognising that we are in a relationship with our environment, we are dependent for our wellbeing on the wellbeing of the environment and that we have to use various instruments, political, diplomatic but also legal to achieve the protection of the environment.’”
Sure, it’s not an “expectation or requirement”, but your oppressively oppressive language of oppressing oppressiveness will be noted, and Brandeis has given notice of what is oppressive…
Screenshots as of writing… but additional archiving of an earlier/stupider draft.
As bad as that is, an earlier version included “picnic” as a racist word. This claim is so stupid that even Snopes calls shenanigans!
“Researchers conducting human-animal hybrid experiments struck fear into federal lawmakers worried that nightmare scenarios of Frankenstein creatures have become a reality.
“…
“Federal officials have placed a moratorium on U.S. funding of such research. Still, they are reviewing the restrictions and scientific developments as Congress debates a bill to spend nearly $200 billion of taxpayers’ money on research and development endeavors to counter China.
“Sen. Mike Braun, Indiana Republican, said he is worried that such human-animal hybrid experiments will cross ethical boundaries and contravene the dignity and sanctity of human life.
“‘I mean, any of us could speculate on kind of the Frankenstein concept, let’s put it that way, which that was being referred to as in terms of what this leads to,’ Mr. Braun said. ‘I don’t know. I think that I do believe that there’s a genuine interest in taking so much that we’ve learned through DNA analysis, understanding the genome of not only human beings but other animals, that there’s going to be that [temptation] contagion to go beyond maybe, just the altruistic effort of finding cures for very, very vexing ailments like ALS, like Alzheimer’s, like any of the diseases that are out there that are significant, that we’re not even to the point where we know exactly what causes it, let alone cures.’
“Mr. Braun and fellow Republicans seek to outlaw chimeras involving the blending of human embryos with animal wombs and animal embryos with human wombs.”
A report from the National Institute of Health even noted the potential for creating clever catgirls… though not explicitly.
“The report said some studies of human-animal hybrid experimentation surrounding the brain, involving neural chimeras, created concerns about ‘animals acquiring attributes that could be viewed as distinctly human, or humans taking on roles that should be reserved for a deity.’”
Are all these potential concerns about mad scientists “playing God” really worse than not having catgirls or other kemonomimi in our future?
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
With #BlackLivesMatter still prominent and Critical Race Theory becoming the center political debate, let us examine how things have change—or not—since William F. Buckley, Jr. debated the question of politics and the progress of Blacks in the United States with Julian Bond and John Lewis nearly half-a-century ago.
A common rejoinder by people who support Critical Race Theory is that the person they are arguing with doesn’t really know what Critical Race Theory really is and that that person should “educate themselves”. For those who don’t have the time or energy to figure all this out and read through a gish gallop of nonsense, here are some good compilations of sources and criticism.
Two good good collections of sources and discussion are Neil Shinvi, who provides reviews of various Critical Race Theory books and National Review, who provides not only their own analysis but links to bot pro and con positions.
The article “How Critical Race Theory Works” by Cameron Hilditch give a good summary and run-down of what Critical Theory is and advocates.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: If you have demonstrated institutional power, then you are not institutionally oppressed.
First, a little mood music:
Viewing “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity” though the “lens of race” is all euphemistic speech for “racial discrimination”.
“Last summer, a working copy of the University of Texas at Austin’s (UT) ‘Faculty Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Strategic Plan’ was leaked by a UT employee. As detailed in an earlier National Association of Scholars article, this plan included political litmus tests for hiring, promotion, and even scholarship. As the article concluded:
“In the name of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ university leadership has decided to end its search for truth and to instead become a redistribution scheme for the transfer of money from students and taxpayers to new hires that, by necessity, must be committed zealots of the regime. If this plan takes effect, Texans of diverse opinions can say goodbye to any dream of being hired by its most prestigious university.
“The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also weighed in, sending UT a letter expressing similar concerns that the plan ‘presents a serious threat of establishing a viewpoint-based litmus test for both hiring and promotion.’
“Not to worry—UT eventually responded, explaining that the leaked document was only an incomplete draft, and that UT would ‘continue to seek faculty with a wide range of political, religious, philosophical, ideological, and academic viewpoints.’ Last week, after rumors from UT insiders circulated that UT President Jay Hartzell might be tactically delaying approval of this plan until after the Texas Legislature adjourns in May, UT quietly announced that the plan had been approved.
“While the final version of UT’s strategic plan has been massaged from the prior draft, in substance the plan’s means, objectives, and import remain the same: all faculty hiring and promotion decisions—and even the conferring of endowed chairs and teaching awards—must now be scrutinized through the lens of whether faculty contribute to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusivity.’ Millions of dollars will be spent on mandatory ‘diversity officers,’ whose job will be to enforce this diversity orthodoxy. New positions will be created that will be open only to those who would ‘increase diversity’ at UT. Muddying the waters further, the plan now adopts the amorphous, undefined concept of ‘diversity skills as a yardstick for hiring and performance.”
Sometimes it seems that wokeness suddenly comes from nowhere, and a once sensible company or organization goes completely cuckoo for social justice. But there are warning signs, as this testimonial attests.
