Critical Race Theory and Other Critical “Theories:” Snakes in the Grass

angela davis critical race theory

Critical Race Theory is a hot topic these days because its purveyors claim that it is good, but we critics of it (pun not intended) say otherwise. CRT claims to address the problem of racial prejudice, which indeed is still a problem in the world. But it uses the wrong approach and in fact is itself racism.

Neo-Marxist Roots and Secret Racism

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

Pictured is “black rights” icon Angela Davis. She is shaking hands with Erich Honecker, an East German politician who was indicted for ordering the killing of 68 people who tried to escape from East to West Germany. She also provided guns to people who murdered some others during a courtroom incident in 1970. She was imprisoned for this and, after her release, she wanted to abolish prisons. She also voiced support for Jim Jones and the People’s Temple cult. She was a member of the US Communist Party from 1969-1991.

She is one of the progenitors of Critical Race Theory, along with WEB Dubois and Derrick Bell, and is a Neo-Marxist. Her mentor is Herbert Marcuse, one of the New Left or Radical Left I mentioned in the Hegel Dialectic article. She is quoted to have said, “in a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.” Her ideas flowed down to Richard Delgado, Kimberle Crenshaw, Robin DiAngelo, Henry Giroux, Ibram X. Kendi and other CRT purveyors.

What connects CRT to Marx and Hegel is the use of the word dialectic. Crenshaw and many other CRT writers and leftists use that word in their writings. As long as someone pushes “dialectic” in their writings, you can bet your bottom dollar that they’re Marxist.

James Lindsay of New Discourses says Marxist ideas went through their own dialectic process. Marx first questioned Hegel then synthesized his own ideas from it. Neo-Marxists, because they saw that no proletariat revolution happened in the west, questioned Marx and synthesized their own ideas afterwards with a mix of Sigmund Freud. Davis and the other people mentioned above ran their own dialectic on Neo-Marxist ideas and synthesized them into CRT and other “theories.”

Back to Davis’ quote, non-racism is simply removing the wrong ideas that say other races are subhuman and applying equal opportunity. This is called incremental or step-by-step progress in the CRT textbook. Anti-racism is claiming that racism exists everywhere and is ‘hidden’ or ‘secret’ if there are no apparent signs of it, so you have to look for it. CRT claims that the foundation of modern society is white supremacy. Any attempt to point out that racism obviously does not exist in a certain case will be tagged as racist itself. Thereby CRT self-protects against any dissent.

For example, if a CRT purveyor sees a white person sitting on a bench and a black person standing beside him, they will say that the black person is being made to stand as a result of racist power dynamics. Even if the reason is that the black person simply paused during a walk to admire the birds, racism is still read into the situation. If you explain that this situation isn’t racist, you will be tagged as racist.

That’s yet another meaning of “Woke.” The “higher consciousness” called “Woke” also means having awakened “racism radar.” They can tell whether another person is secretly racist but other people could not. And you shouldn’t question them because they are always right, because they have the “higher consciousness.” However, sounds like a bunch of bullcrap, right? You bet it is.

Textbook Lack of Logic

Let us look at an excerpt from the CRT textbook, because this is proof that I’m not making things up.

The Critical Race Theory movement (CRT) is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism and power.

The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious.

Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

In the first paragraph, the CRT textbook says that it is a “movement,” though some CRT teachers have gone on record denying that it is a movement. Next, a key word is “transforming,” which sounds like Marx’s line about changing the world. And “power” is something that Marxist thought obsesses over. As I said in my Hegelian religion article, this “transforming” doesn’t mean improving relations between people but rather changing where power resides. In democracies, which are based on the liberal system, power resides in the people, right? So guess what, CRT purveyors want to undo that.

In the second paragraph, CRT seeks to address the issue from a “broader perspective.” It means that it will overlap into many other subjects – perhaps too many subjects. Especially in the last part: feelings and the unconscious. Neo-Marxism applied Freudian principles about hidden thoughts or whatever hidden things are in people’s minds. This includes racist thoughts. This is why CRT purveyors claim that people can be racist without knowing it: the racist thoughts are purportedly in the unconscious.

The last paragraph is the good part. Quoting Lindsay again, if Critical Race Theory’s purveyors claim that their “movement” is unlike traditional civil rights, they can’t claim that they continue the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

CRT questions the liberal order: remember that Marxism considers classical liberalism its enemy. The liberal order that recognizes people’s individual rights is also seen as part of the system that creates systemic racism, so CRT purveyors seek to overturn it.

Next, they don’t like incrementalism and step-by-step progress. So the civil rights movement is too slow for them. How do you speed it up? Revolution. Violently overthrow any institution that supports the liberal order.

It questions equality theory: so if CRT purveyors claim to be for racial equality or equality in general, they are not! They say since racism is everywhere, it means that it can’t be removed. So instead of pursuing equality, the goal is to control racism and be the ones to decide who is more equal than others.

CRT is against legal reasoning and neutral principles of constitutional law, meaning it is against the rule of law on the assumption that the law is inherently racist. Also, it is against ‘neutral principles;’ CRT is against neutrality and objectivity (You can link to this the quote “you side with the oppressor if you are neutral“). You can conclude that CRT is against everything because everything is racist, but once they take control of something, it stops being racist.

Then you have questioning of Enlightenment Rationalism. CRT continues not the civil rights movement but the Anti-Rationalism of Jean Jacques Rousseau, from whom Marx drew. Rousseau and his ilk are ruining our world.

In Simon Webb’s words, CRT entails the “dismissal of classical liberalism of the kind which arose with the Enlightenment, rejection of rational and objective enquiry, affirmation of subjective experience, whether in story-telling or personal testimony, sometimes known as standpoint epistemology, and a tendency towards cultural or racial separatism.”

Other “Theories”

CRT is not the only “theory” that makes use of the Marxist playbook, where you take a certain group, claim that it is “oppressed” despite evidence that the opposite is true and say the solution is for the “oppressed” group to take over.

I mentioned Drag Queen Story Hour before, which applies Queer Theory. The claimed purpose is to de-stigmatize drag queens and LGBT to kids. Drag queens are portrayed as an oppressed group. The claimed source of oppression is the institution of the family. Lindsay says the solution that is being pushed is not to incrementally stop “oppression” (if there is any), but to reverse the situation: make drag queens the authority. Drag Queen Story Hour eventually wants to take children away from the family and teach them the “values” of drag queens, teaching them to become drag queens or LGBTs. This system wants to destroy the family. It is similar to the communist system wherein children are taken from families and schooled (groomed) in another environment. The drag queens become a sort of commissar, the political officer or “reeducator” in Soviet terms.

If you don’t believe all this, there is an academic paper that actually says this. This drag queen thing is also sure to be a gateway for pedophiles to take children and sexually assault them.

Lindsay calls Queer Theory worse than CRT, but there is more. Before Queer Theory, there was the Marxist education theorist Paulo Freire, whose wrote that education is just a tool of bourgeosie domination. Freire said that teaching children to read, write and math is a method of keeping them in subjection to the bourgeosie. So instead of teaching actual subject matter, teach them that they are oppressed so that, later on, they could do “activism.” But this activism is not what we know, such as standing up for others’ rights. If you are guessing that it is overthrowing the liberal and capitalist order, you got it right.

Freire also advocated teaching about sex early to children, which Queer Theory seeks to do. Those who know about Freire likely also know that he was kicked out of Brazil and another country because he was messing up their education system. He worked with Marxist priest Dom Helder Camara, who is an inspiration for Pope Francis. But even before him was Gyorgy Lukacs, who became Hungarian minister of education and also wanted early sex education for children. He also ruined his country’s education system.

In the Philippines, does anyone remember that time a leftist lawmaker said, give us your children and we will take care of them? Was it Sarah Elago or Risa Hontiveros? This was the Marxist education premise being mentioned in the open. They don’t want families to raise children, they want their Marxist groups to do it. I do know at least one local leftist who likes Paulo Freire.

Also, remember What is a Woman as asked by Matt Walsh? Why did the people who were interviewed by Walsh have difficulty answering it? Because they do not believe the common sense answer of a woman being an adult female. They believe that even a woman has no right to call herself a woman. At least one interviewee even said that one should consult an expert. But is that expert a biologist? No, it should be a gender expert.

Basically, Wokes want to deprive people of the right to define themselves. First, people will be thinking up their own genders based on weird things going on in their head. But later on, they will have to defer to the gender expert who will act as a commissar, a Neo-Marxist one. You can’t tell people what gender you are, even if you follow nature; the “expert” will tell you what your gender is. Notice how they say, “gender is assigned.” They use that language to insist that people, not nature, determine genders. Based on that, they want to dictate people’s genders and sexes as part of control over society.

Even the anti-meat/die-hard vegan movement is going the Woke way. The CRT purveyors are likely trying to tell the vegans that they’re “oppressed” with all these meat-eaters around. Then they’ll say that the only way is for vegans to take power and ban the eating of meat. Also, I saw posts like “down with dairy companies” on one vegan’s post. But that’s not going to make sense when you realize that those same companies can provide vegan options too. Plus, the dictatorship of forcing others to be vegan is certainly a bad idea.

Another kind of commissar is the Diversity Officer or Diversity Expert in companies. On the surface they claim to make sure minorities are not blocked from employment. But what they are actually doing is stirring trouble up. They look for secret racism using their “woke consciousness;” so if they can’t find it, they’ll make it up. The result is competent people fired for purportedly being racist, frequent fights in offices, and toxic workplaces. People will also leave on their own because of them. Then these Diversity Officers will place in acquaintances who will likely not do tasks as they should, like a mechanic who doesn’t fix things or an accountant who does not count money. The organizations they take over will be turned into revolutionary groups.

Racist/Discriminatory unless they control it

So with all of these, what will they lead to? Remember the textbook quote above; wokes do not like incrementalism, so they want revolution. The Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 are one of the attempts, perhaps a trial run. They are doing anything to get into power, because that is the only thing that matters for Marxism. Again, to CRT purveyors, everything is racist or discriminatory until they control it.

A Youtube commenter said, “CRT is a big linguistic trick to get good people who oppose racism (in the traditional sense of the word) to, instead, support and/or engage in racism (in the traditional sense) whilst thinking they are still opposing racism.” Webb himself in another article called the idea of institutional racism a conspiracy theory.

Lindsay recounted the Morgan Freeman interview with Mike Wallace where Morgan was asked, how do we stop racism? Just don’t talk about it. Don’t notice my blackness, I won’t notice your whiteness. Because, why would you raise it, are you trying to discriminate? But CRT wants to go the opposite way and will come up with the rationalization that Freeman was only echoing a white ideal. They prefer that things lead to something like the Black Lives Matter riots.

Also, I have written before that “oppressed” people overthrowing and destroying systems will not lead to solutions. The French Revolution happened because of Rosseau’s stupid ideas and it led to a reign of terror. The Chinese Communist Party overthrew the ruling Kuomintang and ruined China. We overthrew Ferdinand Marcos but the problems that beset us then continue to beset us today. Tunisians overthrew President Ben Ali in the famed 2011 Arab Spring series of events, but the same problems remained.

Like the Philippines, neo-leftists had been infiltrating the academe and other areas of life in the US, and even in the UK and Europe. They’ve likely been doing this for a long time, so Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s was no lunatic, he was right. Neo-Marxists have been working their way into mainstream acceptance with silken-tongued claims while hiding who they really are. Also the same in both countries, and perhaps many others, is that this is being struck down as a conspiracy theory or “red-tagging.” We who are aware of this Marxist infiltration of society are struck-down as “right-wing” or “pro-Marcos.” Hopefully, people wise up, become aware of this issue and finally stop what needs to be stopped.

“Debunkers” claim that we Cultural Marxism “conspiracy theorists” believe that Herbert Marcuse, while in the CIA, brainwashed Davis through mind control methods. At least I claim no such thing. Davis was Marcuse’s student, it was just all teaching and Davis embraced the teaching mindfully. All you need is carry on the germ of a bad idea because, no matter who tries it out, it’s a bad idea that will cause a lot of harm (Oh, and speaking of germs, there’s such a paper as “Women’s Studies as a Virus.” See Lindsay’s examination of it).

8 Replies to “Critical Race Theory and Other Critical “Theories:” Snakes in the Grass”

  1. Wow, this article is full of hateful speech against LGBT and races in the guise of being “academic”. I don’t believe in the conspiracy of infiltration, especially if the group being accused of such are really not that smart. Problems arise, and even persists, after revolutions or rebellions simply because all human systems are flawed. The only way to weed out toxicity in workplaces is to replace all humans with machines. I am not proposing genocide. But I am not saying removing all humans from the workforce is a bad idea. If that confused you, you got my point.

    1. I don’t see what I wrote as hateful here. Perhaps you should include as part of the “hateful” groups the Gays Against Groomers group. Oh, that’s the word I forgot when describing “drag queen commissars” – groomers. Such a touchy word that using it on Twitter may get one permanently banned.

    2. Wow, this comment by a human LARPing as a bot is full of sloganeering copy pasta that only a brainless bigot like you and the establishment politicians and their slaves in academia could concoct.

      Apologize and never speak again, you imperialist bigot.

  2. “Sir Tim Hunt apologized for his remarks almost immediately. So did James Watson. So did Brendan Eich. But SJWs don’t seek apologies for the same reason normal people do. They don’t demand apologies in order to see that the individual who has offended them admits that he has commited an offense, regrets having done so, and will seek to avoid doing so again in the future. The reason SJWs demand apologies is in order to establish that the act they have deemed an offense is publicly recognized as an offense by the offender. The demand for an apology has nothing whatsoever to do with the offender. It is focused on the SJW’s need to prove that the violation of the Narrative involved is publicly accepted as a real and legitimate offense for which punishment is merited. And once the apology is duly delivered by the accused, who is usually bewildered at the accusation and in a state of shock at the unexpected social pressure he faces, it is promptly rejected because it is not the action, but the actor, that is the real target.”

    https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought/dp/9527065682&ved=2ahUKEwiG0cPgmcb6AhW3l1YBHXbEDGkQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2MIT-ZFfzlqMAIOfQ46T-8

    If you haven’t checked out the manual to handling the woke menace, then you really should.

  3. “Like the Philippines, neo-leftists had been infiltrating the academe and other areas of life in the US, and even in the UK and Europe. They’ve likely been doing this for a long time, so Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s was no lunatic, he was right.”
    – – – – – –
    McCarthy was a bully, a demagogue who took advantage of his position to spread Red scare through bullying and intimidation. In fact, he was so wrong his fellow senators turned against him they passed a motion of condemnation (67-22). At 48, he died a bitter and beaten man.

    1. The idea that Mccarthy was right is hilarious (we are changing history now lol… seems to be a common theme now from all political sides to fit their narrative)

      He used fear mongering and through rational senators was shown the proverbial door.

      There are many more negatives to censorship and fear than there are to traditional liberal values and freedom.

      (By traditional liberal values I mean live and let live, let people live however they want as long as they are not hurting another person. Traditional laws are made to protect people from being physically/financially hurt and to give people equal standing/protection. The idea of creating laws which punish someone for their thoughts/ideas is anti-freedom.

      Look at any sort of freedom list by country and the most free countries seem like nice places to live while the least free countries don’t seem as nice….

    2. While McCarthy certainly had made mistakes, the Red Threat he raised was no bogeyman. The case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and of course the whole Cold War spy war, was proof.

  4. James Lindsay’s new podcast is interesting, how the Red Thread (not just Red Threat now) is bringing about The Strange Death of the University – infiltration of the academe is destroying peer review and the methodology of testing out theories to sift out the truth. Instead, schools will become indoctrination centers for “transforming” society, meaning applying leftist dictatorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.