Apparently denying service to someone because they are not the correct race is hilarious to the British Broadcasting Corporation, which posted this clip from the show “Shrill” that they are currently showing!
Yikes. #Shrill pic.twitter.com/2QNxwDQSWv
— BBC Three (@bbcthree) May 23, 2021
The show is, ironically, called “Shrill” and is actually an American show, which makes the racial discrimination even more egregious.
One of the ways that Critical Race Theory is presented as a “legitimate” alternative is to say that it is just an alternative “that challenges the ability of conventional legal strategies to deliver social and economic justice and specifically calls for legal approaches that take into consideration race as a nexus of American life” and that it is just an innocent movement that “champions many of the same concerns as the civil rights movement but places those concerns within a broader economic and historical context” that “often elevates the equality principles of the Fourteenth Amendment above the liberty principles of the First Amendment.”
Even with the rather dry tone it is clear that elevates race as the prime mover of all of society that can only be combated by diminishing civil liberties and thus by inequality under the law achieve equality in principle.
It’s a strange “legal approach” that rejects the entire legal framework within which it seeks to work, much like a deadly virus within the human body.
Even those who pretend Critical Race Theory was created by a handful of so-called “legal scholars” (e.g. Derrick Bell, Alan Freemen, and Richard Delgado) end up admitting to it having certain core tenets that are hard to disguise as anything but Marxist in framework. Tenets include:
“Some of the basic tenets of CRT rest on the belief that racism is a fundamental part of American society, not simply an aberration that can be easily corrected by law; that any given culture constructs its own social reality in its own self-interest, and in the United States this means that minorities’ interests are subservient to the system’s self-interest; and that the current system, built by and for white elites, will tolerate and encourage racial progress for minorities only if this promotes the majority’s self-interest.”
Herein lies the core problem of Critical Race Theory: I presumes the primacy of aspect that the Critical Theory is applied to and further presumes that this primary aspect must have a foundation an oppressor/oppressed dynamic.
In effect, it is an admission that Critical Race Theory is nothing more than an example of begging the question. It is often said by many of its proponents, and others on the Left, that “not seeing color” is to be “color blind” to racism that is all around, and that by mono manically focusing in on race can it be proved that that focused upon racial aspect is dominant and all other ignored aspects are at most subservient. To use a color analogy, it is like putting on a filter that excludes all but one wavelength of light to prove that that frequency is the dominant one and the only one that really matters, regardless of the truth of the full spectrum. Now that is true color blindness.
One of the rhetorical tricks of the dishonest Left is to make a statement and declare that is is correct because you, dear reader, can not spontaneously exude a Ph.D. level dissertation complete with a plethora of citations against the statement of the dishonest Leftist, particularly when it comes to the almost gnostic underpinings of the language and tenets of their belief.
For example, a supporter of Critical Race Theory will simply say that is is a novel legal theory about correcting deficiencies in civil rights, or that it has nothing to do with Marxist thought, and rely on most people’s unfamiliarity with the writings, belief structure, and both tricks and intellectual deficiency of the Leftist’s belief.
In a nearly four hour academic investigation, James Lindsey, of the New Discourses podcasts, explored the “Hegel, Wokeness, and the Dialectical Faith of Leftism”.
The breakdown of law and order in the major, and woke, cities has become increasingly overt in the past year or two. Case in point in Seattle, where police sat by and let squatters clear out the home they were squatting even after being arrested for illegal possession of drugs and firearms in the same house.
“Sammamish is a very upscale city east of Seattle where the price of homes can reach up to several million dollars. One of those homes recently was targeted by a group of squatters who appear to have been using it as a stash house. The scheme was discovered when someone working for the homeowner entered the home and found ‘12 guns, bulletproof vests, more than 15,000 fentanyl pills, heroin, meth, and more than $40,000 in cash.’
“The worker called police who showed up to collect the drugs and the loot. As they were deciding what to do next, two people pulled up on a motorcycle. Neighbors identified them as the squatters who’d been living in the house. Police arrested them for burglary but, because this is Seattle, they were back on the street in a matter of days.
“The squatters soon returned to the house and this time they brought friends. Police Chief Dan Pingrey had no choice but to stand by while they loaded up a U-haul with what they claimed were their belongings.”
Seattle is increasingly fine with anarchy… unless the crime is lack of wokeness, in which case you will be re-educated and made to fall into line.
This anarchy is asymmetric: If the law-breaking helps to break the system, then by golly the criminals will be given free reign; but the full force of government will be used to impose wokeness on people, if not outright tacitly allowing woke revolutionaries impose a literal police state on innocents.
But then we all know that equality under the law is unwoke… and anarchy is ultimately authoritarian.
It is increasingly clear that the so-called “scientific” ideology of the Left is little more than a form of magical thinking and with religious fever masquerading as reason. Sometimes they make it clear that they believe that magic is real and just a non-White “way of knowing.” Such is the case of the “serious study” (LOL) of intersectional “anti-colonialism” as applied to… astrology.
“When Alice Sparkly Kat, a queer Chinese Brooklyn-based astrologer, started studying the planets in the early 2010s, there were few books about astrology, let alone ones by people of color. Last year, while teaching astrology to Cantonese- and Mandarin-speaking elders, she began to receive a lot of questions: Why is the West so central in astrological discussions and study, and what are its limitations? These conversations are what inspired them to write Postcolonial Astrology: Reading The Planets Through Capital, Power, and Labor.
“In their new book, Alice Sparkly Kat interprets the stars through history, politics, and postcolonial theory. Throughout their nuanced and intricate analysis, astrology becomes a way to break political and social norms: A look at the relationship of Mars and Venus complicates gendered power dynamics, while a study of the sun becomes a history of surveillance culture and the politics of who gets to be seen. While some might be hesitant to view astrology as political, Postcolonial Astrology encourages readers to study the stars so that they can better understand their own values, views, identities, and desires for the future.”
“I’m in your Zodiac, colonizing your astrology!”
News of the Week for June 6th, 2021
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Crazy groups lead by even crazier leaders is nothing new, as William F. Buckley, Jr. discusses with Vincent Bugliosi.
FYI,
With so many states considering legislation to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory, it would be useful to use a centralized tracker of the legislation and its status.
Christopher Rufo has put together such a tracker here.
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: The quest for more death.
First, a little mood music:
The idea that a person can choose to “die with dignity” kinda presumes that they have the mental capacity and ability to choose… unless they are in Canada.
“A bill just passed the House of Commons that — barring shockingly unforeseen resistance in the Senate, which already voted to loosen the rules — will radically expand eligibility for euthanasia in Canada, including the following provisions:
Reasonably foreseeable death will no longer be required. That opens the door to euthanizing people with disabilities, patients diagnosed with dementia but still competent, as well as the mentally ill.
After a further time for studying the issue of creating protective guidelines (!!), people whose sole medical problem is mental illness will explicitly qualify for euthanasia.
There will be no waiting period required between request for death and termination for people whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable — a very lax term. This means a patient with, say, two years of life expectancy could theoretically be killed immediately upon request.
“The expansion will eventually continue to allowing people diagnosed with dementia to order themselves killed in an advance directive when they become mentally incompetent and to pediatric euthanasia of ‘mature minors’ — both among the subjects likely to be ‘studied’ by a committee of ‘experts’ over the next two years, meaning they are coming next.”
Ohio join many other states in seeing legislation introduced to bad the teaching of racist ideology such as Critical Race Theory. HB 322 reads, in part:
Sec. 3313.6028. (A) No state agency, school district, or school shall teach, instruct, or train any administrator, teacher, staff, member, or employee to adopt or believe any of the following concepts:
(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race;
(4) Members of one race cannot or should not attempt to treat others without respect to race;
(5) An individual’s moral standing or worth is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex;
(6) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(7) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex;
(8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex;
(9) Fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or to members of that race or sex because of their race or sex;
(10) The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States;
(11) With respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.
E-mail me!
