You may or may not have heard of “critical race theory”, but you’ve sure as hell seen its corrosive effects on Western society and politics. Like its cousins, “Queer Theory” and “Critical Theory”, critical race theory is Marxist mumbo-jumbo which has managed to ooze its way out from the loonier fringes of academia and cast its vile spell over mainstream politics and culture.
If you’ve wondered where the sudden obsession that everything from solar eclipses to cold weather are “racist” (I’m not making either of those up) has come from, the answer is simple: critical race theory.
So, just what the hell is this “critical race theory” and is it, as Donald Trump averred, actually racist? Strap yourselves in, it’s gonna get crazy.
Critical race theory claims to trace its roots to the writings of people like Frederick Douglass. But Douglass merely argued for the right of blacks to be recognised as full human beings. W E B Du Bois went further, though, arguing that the very idea of race is a “racist construct” designed to justify slavery. But even that wasn’t crazy enough for the Marxists of the 1960s. Where the liberals of the 1950s and 60s had this crazy idea of treating everyone equally and judging them by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin, the founders of critical race theory just wanted to see the whole lot burn, baby, burn.
And the colour of your skin was everything. Especially if that colour is white.
The founding father of critical race theory was Derrick Bell, professor at Harvard Law School. Bell argued that racism has not improved and is, in fact permanent, and that whites simply find less obvious and legal ways to maintain their dominance. Bell developed his theory of “Interest convergence” which argued that whites only extend rights to blacks when it is in their own material interest. This cynical and pessimistic materialist approach tends to present empirical evidence of disparities and then claim racism as the sole cause of them, while ignoring progress.
If that wasn’t stupid enough, it got a whole lot worse in the 90s, when the postmodernists decided that even such concepts as “evidence”, “reason” and “truth” were as racist as a Klansman in blackface. Then, along came “intersectionality”. Intersectionality lynches for good and all the old liberal idea of judging people by the content of their character (take that, Martin Luther King Jr, you racist, you!). Instead, not just the colour of one’s skin, but one’s sex and sexual preference were the only things that mattered.
The work of Ibram X Kendi […presents] us with two intertwined false dichotomies. Firstly, one can only be racist or anti-racist. Secondly, one can either support the existence of disparities between races as right and natural or one can attribute them to racist power structures and policies in society and oppose them.
That is, either one accepts that all disparities are the result of racist structures in society and devotes oneself to opposing these as such, or one is a racist.
But even that isn’t fruit-loop-city enough for the modern leftist. Hell, that leaves wriggle-room for some white people to not be racist.
The critical race theorists couldn’t allow that.
Robin DiAngelo […argues] that white people are unavoidably racist because of the ways in which they have been socialised in white supremacist countries. DiAngelo identifies America as just such a country but also much of Europe, including the UK.
For DiAngelo, “whiteness” is a system that whites perpetuate with everything they do. In White Fragility, she describes whiteness as a “constellation of processes and practices” consisting of “basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people”.
With Calvinist pessimism, DiAngelo refuses to accept anything but that everything, everyone (well, every white), forever, is racist.
Elsewhere, she sets out a tenet of anti-racism, stating that “The question is not ‘Did racism occur?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’” There is no possibility of not being racist and DiAngelo’s training aims to get white people to accept that they are racist.
This is the bitter, twisted heart of critical race theory: all white people are racist and they always will be.
Which is as racist as all hell.
But the critical race theorists would rather die than admit to being racist, so they resort to two big lies to cover their tracks.
Firstly, in stunningly Orwellian move, they simply change the definition of racism. I bet you think that racism means being prejudiced against people because of their race? You’re not smart enough to be a leftist, then. Instead, the left have declared that racism is “prejudice plus power”; then, they shuffle peas and shells some more and argue that, as non-whites are never in a position of power (even if they’re, you know, the President of the United States), then, presto! Only whites are racist.
The second Big Lie is to claim that critical race theory is just “anti-racism training” which aims to have all people recognised as equally human.
We know absolutely that this is a lie, because the critical race theorists explicitly state the exact opposite.
This universal humanist approach is explicitly criticised in critical race theory as the failed liberal approach. Critical race theory works by foregrounding identity, not our shared humanity[…]
Critical race theory and particularly the anti-racism of Robin DiAngelo require people to reject individual agency and the individual’s knowledge of and control over their own mind, and to accept that they must believe precisely what one set of [appallingly racist] American theorists insist they do.
UnHerd
Forcing people to undergo critical race theory in practise as “anti-racism training” is akin to forcing them to convert to, say, Islam, and then denying everyone the option of being Christian, Jewish or Atheist.
Critical race theory is intolerant nonsense – and absolutely racist.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD