h/t Peter Boghossian: https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/...81564964331520
CRT is a red herring for the LGBTQ pedophile agenda.
Thee (God) alone will we serve and from Thee alone will we seek help
It, and what you mentioned, is a red herring for the communo-fascist upending of the last bastion of freedom on Earth.Originally Posted by orafi
...and the largest theft from the poor by the rich in human history.
//You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.
A enlargeable version....
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch...4500x4171.jpeg
Original Source
https://michaelshellenberger.substac...-is-a-religion
Last edited by Mach; 11-13-2021 at 01:19 PM.
FJB
Critical Race Theory doesn't exist ...
... and even if it does exist, it isn't manifested in schools ...
... and even if it is manifested in schools, it's only as an obscure legal theory taught in university-level law courses ...
Twitter thread by Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) : https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/st...50046836154375
Thread compiled @ threadreaderapp.com: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...836154375.html
Seattle Public Schools employs a full-time critical race theorist.
Seattle Public Schools officially endorses "Critical Race Theory" as part of its Black Studies curriculum and is "working to develop a liberatory curriculum for grades K-5 that embeds Black Studies across all subjects."
The Seattle school board does "racial equity training" that explicitly teaches "critical race theory."
Seattle Public Schools is deploying 31 "racial equity teams" who practice "critical race theory" in K-12 schools, including elementary schools.
Ballard High School even has a course that explicitly teaches critical race theory. They're not even trying to hide it.
I found all of this material in less than 15 minutes through Google searches. The argument that "critical race theory isn't in K-12 schools" is an obvious farce—and, luckily, voters see right through it.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 11-22-2021 at 10:05 PM.
Bump for THREAD: Groomer Schools
Bump for related threads.
RELATED THREADS:
The “Gender-Variant Universe”
A consortium of publicly subsidized nonprofits wants to “decolonize gender” and normalize male genitalia as a form of authentic womanhood.
https://www.city-journal.org/transge...heir-own-words
Christopher F. Rufo (06 June 2022)
Transgender activism has been making inroads into America’s public institutions. The Biden administration has recently promoted neo-pronouns and gender-reassignment surgery for minors, government agencies have celebrated the expansion of identity categories such as “pansexual” and “non-binary,” and public schools across the country have adopted curricula teaching students about transitioning from one gender to another. Trans activists often present their ideological program through a series of euphemisms and tautologies, such as “gender diversity,” “LGBTQ inclusion,” “love is love,” “protect trans kids,” and “comprehensive sexual education.” But these slogans obscure more than they reveal. The deeper nature of trans ideology is much more radical, and the public should have a clear-eyed understanding of what trans activists believe, beyond the protective layer of obfuscatory language.
The best way to do this is to listen to activists in their own words. Last year, a consortium of trans organizations in Washington State hosted a presentation series, titled “Decolonizing Gender,” that offers an honest, unfiltered look into the world of trans activism and ideology. The event was hosted by the most prominent gender-identity nonprofits in the region—TRACTION, Lavender Rights Project, Black Trans Task Force, Gender Justice League, and UTOPIA Washington—all of which run programs for minors and receive taxpayer support. (TRACTION, the primary organizer of the event, did not return a request for comment.)
The panelists represented a wide range of idiosyncratic identities, expressed in a mixture of New Age and intersectional language—the more obscure and oppressed, the greater the status within the community. The main presenter, trans activist Malcolm Shanks, said he was a descendant of black slaves and Taíno tribesmen and “used to identify as gender fluid,” but has been “identifying more recently as a little bit more gaseous or plasma-like.” Randy Ford, a fundraiser for the Lavender Rights Project and black male-to-female “trans femme,” said she uses “‘she,’ ‘her,’ [and] ‘goddess’ as pronouns.” Mahkyra Gaines, a program coordinator for the Gender Justice League, said she uses “no pronouns” and identifies as “non-binary” and “kind of like a black hole.” Ganesha Gold Buffalo, a male-to-female trans prostitute and activist at the Black Trans Task Force, said she identifies as “Choctaw, Cherokee, and black” and with the “sacred lands.”
To begin the event, Shanks led the group in a “land acknowledgement,” denouncing white colonizers for seizing indigenous territory, and introduced the main theme of the conversation with a long lecture on “decolonizing gender.” The crux of Shank’s argument was that white European colonizers committed genocide against indigenous people and replaced the natives’ peaceful, non-binary gender system with an oppressive “colonial gender binary.” This was the origin of “transphobic violence” and set the background conditions for the oppression of “gender non-conforming people” to the present day. For Shanks, however, the white European male-female binary has always been a harmful myth. “There’s no such thing as male genes or female hormones or a male body,” he said. White colonizers invented these concepts and imposed them on non-Western cultures in order to maintain “a system that creates value for very, very few white men.”
This conceptual framework—a patchwork of queer theory and postcolonial theory—provides trans activists with a powerful victim narrative and a general explanation for individual suffering. A common thread through the presentations was the articulation of personal “pain” and “trauma,” which, they say, are caused by colonialism and can be mitigated or transcended through “queer” identity constructs. “My first introduction to colonialism looked a lot like me waking up at four in the morning, five in the morning, every morning, to sounds of my ancestors screaming from outside my window, coming from the ground, coming from the earth,” said Ganesha Gold Buffalo, the trans prostitute. “I followed those screams into the woods as a child . . . and was taught by my ancestors in those woods, in the forms of nature spirits, in the forms of elementals, in the forms of natural deities and old gods. While I was out there, I was taught many things and my mind was decolonized.”
Society, not the individual psyche, is identified as the locus of such disturbances. As such, trans activists see the route to healing not through personal integration, but through the total and unconditional affirmation of their identities by society as a whole. “For gender, myself, it’s been a constant struggle under colonialism, not to accept and affirm myself, but to find acceptance and affirmation and understanding outside of myself,” said Gold Buffalo. Her desire is to live in a society that has been liberated from transphobia and affirms her identity as a woman with a penis. “I one-hundred percent want to still be able to look in the mirror and see every part of myself as a woman, see every part of myself as a two-spirit trans woman, a beautiful being: my moustache, all of my facial hair, my untrimmed brows, my fat ass, my belly, my big dick, everything.” Randy Ford, the fundraiser, echoed this sentiment. “I want you to call me ‘Mommy,’ ‘Queen,’ ‘Daddy,’ if I want you to,” she said. For these activists, the subjective demands of gender identity must be affirmed, no matter how mercurial, self-contradictory, or absurd.
The ultimate ambition of “decolonizing gender” is to overthrow the intellectual and political regime of white Europeans and reestablish the “gender-variant universe” that was once widely accepted in pre-colonial culture. Malcolm Shanks argued that this campaign of “gender resistance” must destroy not only the concept of the gender binary but also “capitalism,” “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” “imperialism,” and white European land ownership. In the meantime, as an initial gesture of good faith, the panelists recommended that straight white Americans provide direct cash “reparations” to gender-nonconforming people. “If you have access to generational wealth, if you’re white and your parents have a savings account that is very much so connected to slavery and land theft, pay people,” said Mahkyra Gaines of the Gender Justice League. “Pay people directly. Give them the money so they can have the financial security in order to rest and to heal and to connect with their communities. . . . Pay that money to us now.”
Though this kind of ideology might appear to be the work of a fringe minority, it is becoming increasingly mainstream in activist and educational institutions. The host organizations for the “Decolonizing Gender” presentations have been remarkably successful in securing taxpayer funding and gaining access to children through educational and social service programs. TRACTION conducts education programs for transgender-identifying youth and has received funding from Washington State. Gender Justice League has received funding from King County and runs a housing program for transgender-identifying homeless minors. The Lavender Rights Project and Black Trans Task Force provide legal services for LGBT youth and have received funding from King County. UTOPIA Washington provides services for sex workers, runs an after-school program for children, and has received funding from Washington State, King County, and the City of Seattle.
Though the ideas promoted by these activist organizations might be pseudo-historical, internally contradictory, and rooted in personal pathologies, none of this has stopped them from attaining political and cultural influence. Whatever their faults, gender activists have understood that their path to power requires public subsidy and the transmission of their ideology through educational and other public institutions. On that count, they are achieving their objectives.
[bold emphasis added - OB]
The anti-concepts employed by the "woke" (such as "anti-racism" or "equity" or "decolonization" or "diversity" or "inclusion" or etc. ad nauseam) are just happy-talk camouflage.
What they really want is MONEY and POWER.
Listen to and believe them when they tell you so:
https://twitter.com/BalqeesJama/stat...33807033700352
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-06-2022 at 06:59 PM.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/st...90412175163393The anti-concepts employed by the "woke" (such as "anti-racism" or "equity" or "decolonization" or "diversity" or "inclusion" or etc. ad nauseam) are just happy-talk camouflage.
What they really want is MONEY and POWER.
Listen to and believe them when they tell you so:
https://twitter.com/BalqeesJama/stat...33807033700352
It's a good think I am no longer working. My mouth would have gotten me into MUCH trouble, if they had tried to shove their Critical Race Theory propaganda down my throat.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
This is what gets normal children kicked out of school when they are brought up with a sense of morals and decency.
Never let enemies of freedom and self reliance educate your children.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
See my sig quote. They're really just enemies of natural individuality. Freedom and self-reliance {and critical thinking) springs out of recognizing one's individuality, instead of their goal of embracing collectivism, where all people (AKA PROPERTY) are identical and uniform (aka equality), even if they clearly are not identical and uniform.
Last edited by devil21; 06-07-2022 at 03:30 PM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
Even the Left are abandoning the Left.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/0...left-the-left/
I have been dedicated to the left since I was a teenager. As a young woman, I identified as a Marxist, viewing even socialists as ‘not left enough’. I voted for Canada’s left-wing party, the New Democratic Party, in every provincial and federal election from the time I was 18 until a few years ago. I viewed anyone who voted for our centrist party – the Liberal Party, now led by Justin Trudeau – as right-wing. I was not just left, but left of the left, and proud of it.
Many on the American right lazily refer to the ‘woke’ – that is, the kinds of people who label the United States a ‘white supremacist’ country, who believe respecting preferred pronouns is an important political position, and who insist that those who voted for Trump are dangerous ‘fascists’ – as ‘communists’ and ‘Marxists’. But even five years ago I would have insisted the woke were not the ‘real left’. The real left, I believed, was more interested in material concerns, like raising taxes on the rich, a higher minimum wage, universal daycare and publicly funded healthcare.
While most opponents of wokeness frame modern leftists as evil, I actually understand them. I know they aren’t, for the most part, bad people – just people with a blind commitment to an ideology claiming to seek justice, equality and an end to exploitation. I was one of these people, and I believed I was on the left because I cared about people and about creating a better world. There was no need for me to explore other ideologies because I knew I was good and right, and those who did not agree with me were wrong and bad.
Despite my dedication to the radical left, I became a pariah among progressives relatively quickly because of my opposition to the sex trade. I insisted that prostitution, strip clubs, pornography and sexual objectification in the media harmed women. I wrote critically about SlutWalk, a march that began in Toronto back in 2011, where young women attempted to fight victim-blaming by embracing the term ‘slut’ and parading through the streets in their underwear. I also argued that sexualised violence, even if ‘consensual’, is probably not a good thing. This angered the BDSM perverts and third-wave feminists who, like rebellious teenagers, argue that all ‘sex’ is good sex and label anyone who disagrees a religious prude or a ‘slut-shamer’.
The modern left had already lost the plot when I was beginning my career as a feminist writer back in 2009. The fact that any feminist or socialist would frame prostitution as an empowering choice for women was always strange to me. I remained committed nonetheless. I was always controversial, but things ramped up in 2015 when hundreds of Canadian leftists – members of groups such as the Toronto Sex Workers Action Project, Black Lives Matter Toronto and Trans Pride Toronto – signed a petition demanding I be fired and No Platformed by Rabble.ca, a Canadian progressive news site I worked for at the time.
The left didn’t want me, but I hung on. It wasn’t until the past couple of years that I came to terms with the fact that I no longer wished to be tied to this modern iteration of the left.
The most decisive thing for me has been the left’s erasure of women, which is now undeniable.
Last month, a leaked US Supreme Court draft opinion suggested the possible overturning of Roe v Wade. Thousands rallied across America under the banner ‘My body, my choice’.
In response to the leak, the ACLU, an organisation that once stood for civil liberties, tweeted that ‘Abortion bans disproportionately harm…’ followed by a long list of identity groups, including the ‘LGBTQ community’ and ‘people of colour’. Notably absent from its list was the only group of people abortion bans directly impact: women.
Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive-health services in the United States, began using gender-neutral terms like ‘pregnant people’ and ‘menstruators’ to refer to women as far back as 2016. When I criticised this move at the time, my column was later unpublished by Rabble.ca editors, which led to my resignation. In a Facebook post explaining my split from the site, I wrote that I refused to participate in ‘this Nineteen Eighty-Four-style Newspeak’. Things have only become worse since.
I wanted the left to change. That’s why I stuck around for so long. I wanted to be a voice of dissent in the movement and to push for something better. I warned that this kind of censorious, cowardly silencing and refusal to have any critical debate about ideas would lead to the left’s failure. But progressives only doubled down – clinging ever-more tightly to ideologies and mantras that are irrational and regressive, and censoring anyone who dared challenge them.
The left, seemingly along with most feminists, has now decided it no longer knows what a woman is, and that anyone who claims to know must be silenced.
At a certain point, we have to stop pretending this is just about a few bad apples. We have to stop hanging on, imagining this group will come around. It is time to deal with reality, not wishful thinking: this is the left now, whether we like it or not.
Fortunately, how you label yourself matters much less than what you actually do and the principles you support. The actions, ideas and policy are what count.
Blind devotion towards any group is dangerous. And it is particularly dangerous when it is towards a group that demands total capitulation – even to irrational ideas, such as that men are women or that two plus two can sometimes equal five – under threat of ostracism, financial punishment or even arrest.
We are also expected to believe that the left, which in Canada spent the past year calling for truckers to lose their jobs for protesting against vaccine mandates, is now in favour of ‘my body, my choice’.
The left is no longer a movement for justice and freedom from oppression, it is a movement for bullying and totalitarian control. Yet many feminists are still clinging to its coattails, wishful for what once was.
An ideology that says individual responsibility, accountability for one’s own life and a desire for self-improvement are bad things is not an empowering ideology, or one that will lead to a better society. A political movement that says the world around you is responsible for all that ails you, and that society must accommodate bad behaviour from any individual claiming a marginalised identity, is destined for failure.
In feminism, a lot of time is dedicated to asking why our movements, forums and activist groups quickly descend into infighting, drama and toxicity. During my time working with feminist collectives, it was always impossible to come to any decision. Meetings were often held hostage by narcissists who wished to make everything about their various afflictions and ‘trauma’, and who were willing to tear the group apart, seemingly just to test their power.
All this is ingrained in the leftist approach now, where ‘Safe Spaces’ are prioritised over getting things done, and where being an ‘ally’ means publicly proclaiming solidarity or condemnation, regardless of one’s individual thoughts or opinions. Independent thought is treated as a threat.
Any movement that treats those who achieve success, a platform or any form of power as traitors to be torn down and destroyed – or thinks that advocating for universal civil rights and liberties is ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’ or ‘transphobic’ – is not a movement ‘for the people’.
I haven’t adopted any particularly ‘right-wing’ values – unless supporting freedom, independence and autonomy now places one on the right, in which case I’ll accept the label. Call me what you like, but I have not sold out – I have maintained my commitment to doing what I consider to be right and ethical, no matter how unpopular that makes me.
FJB
At least the "Nigerian Prince" emails were conscious enough to be subtle. This is just a blatant, transparent grift. "Give us your money". LMFAO GFYS. I wouldn't p!ss on these people if they were on fire.
And note the "if you're white and your parents have a savings account [...]" bit.
The targets of scams like the "Nigerian Prince" were the marks themselves.
These scumbags, by contrast, are going after the marks' children.
Can you say, "sugar babies"? Grooming and grifting - two birds, one stone.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-18-2022 at 09:02 AM.
See THIS POST in the Groomer Schools thread for James Linday's analysis of this paper.
Remember that abolishing inheritance is a plank of the Communist Manifesto and is one of the few planks not already fulfilled.
Just occasionally do a personal refresher on the Communist Manifesto and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to see what's in store for the near future (meaning what hasn't been completed yet).
Last edited by devil21; 06-22-2022 at 06:27 PM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
The anti-concepts employed by the "woke" (such as "anti-racism" or "equity" or "decolonization" or "diversity" or "inclusion" or etc. ad nauseam) are just happy-talk camouflage.
What they really want is MONEY and POWER.
Listen to and believe them when they tell you so:
https://twitter.com/BalqeesJama/stat...33807033700352
Critical Race Theory: Academic Malfeasance and Fraudulence
CRT is what happens when methodological individualism is abandoned and replaced by “systems” and “structures” that apparently do everything while actual people do nothing.
https://mises.org/wire/critical-race...nd-fraudulence
Michael Rectenwald (26 July 2022)
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article. [MP3 file here]
Although sometimes dubbed “the ivory tower,” the academy is anything but a quaint exception to or ancillary adjunct of the real world. Quite otherwise, academia is an ideological state apparatus. I maintain that the academy is the dominant ideological state apparatus. Or, to borrow a more recent formulation, the academy is best understood as “the cathedral,” as the contemporary equivalent of the medieval papacy in our “progressive,” postmodern times.
The received notion of the academy’s irrelevance is a guise that has allowed the institution to hide its ideological role in plain sight. Yet the cathedral does generate dominant ideologies, although time is required for its products to be disseminated across the broader social body after they have been digested and excreted by the media, the interchange between the cathedral and the unwashed. However, the time lapse has decreased in the digital age, when academics can speak directly to the public on social media, and when their publications are accessible to the layperson in digital formats—although in jargon laden and often incoherent prose.
Nevertheless, if the primary means of ideological production is the academy, and if academics are the primary owners of the means of ideological production, then the pronouncements that come from academics are significant.
“‘Dead Honky’—against Technologies of (White) Violence”
It may take time for academia’s ideological work to affect the social body, but the effect is sure to be felt. That’s why a recent article, published in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, should be a cause for concern. Titled “‘Dead Honky’—against Technologies of (White) Violence,” it not only “performs violence” against “whiteness” but also represents an extreme case of academic malfeasance and fraudulence. The article has been making the rounds in conservative media, with implicit outcries over its racist language. With calls for “the death of whiteness” and “to let whiteness bleed out,” the piece contributes to the already incendiary and ludicrous field of critical race theory (CRT).
Had this essay applied its violent rhetoric and imagery to any other racial or ethnic category, its barely concealed homicidal ideation would have had its author, D.-L. Stewart, dubbed a “Nazi” and relegated to a figurative gulag in academic Siberia. Instead, the article will, no doubt, be cited favorably in future “scholarship,” by some equally or even more unhinged academic fraudsters.
Others have written at great lengths about the racist implications of such CRT texts and their corrosive effects on race relations. I will point instead to the intellectual damage it does the academy and society at large.
“Whiteness,” Stewart declares, “is itself violence.” As evidence that whiteness is violence, Stewart simply appends a footnote to the claim. The footnote baldly asserts: “Over the last 2 years, I have seen this said with a specificity and clarity by Black people on Twitter in a way I have not so readily seen in academia.” That is, the evidence that whiteness is violence can be found in unspecified tweets by unspecified black people who say so. But Stewart’s article is rife with citations to previous books and articles that also make the assertion without evidence or reasoning. Such self-referentiality has become the hallmark of academic discourse in the humanities and social sciences, and especially in CRT.
Other CRT “scholars,” Stewart also notes, have suggested that the term “whiteness” should not be used in lieu of “white people” because such usage “may deflect assigning operative agency and responsibility to white people for their white supremacist beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.” But the author will stick with “whiteness,” because
I cannot swap out whiteness for white people and elide the ways that whiteness remains in power even when no white people are in leadership. This distinction is critically important to avoid the trap that only people racially categorized as white can operate the social mechanisms of whiteness … it is both dangerous and foolhardy to anthropomorphize whiteness as though it were capable of containment solely within corporeal forms at all, let alone within certain corporeal forms.
Whiteness, that is, is the new ghost in the machine, and it even escapes corporal bodies. Even when no “white people” are in power, or even without people acting at all, this ghost still operates “the social mechanisms of whiteness,” apparently of its own accord. At this rate, the only means for bringing about “the death of whiteness” might be to perform an exorcism on the social mechanisms of whiteness, whatever they might be. CRT is what happens when methodological individualism is abandoned and replaced by “systems” and “structures” that apparently do everything while actual people do nothing.
As further evidence that referring to “whiteness” is preferable to referring to “white people,” the author states the following:
TwV [the technologies of white violence] can be performed by anyone regardless of their racial classification. It is not about white racial identity, even though white racial identity was made the proxy for systematized white supremacy. It is a shell game—the more one looks at white people, the less likely one is to see the gears of the machinery and therefore think, for example, that having more BIPOC [black, indigenous, and people of color] elected officials will stem the violence.
We may guess that Stewart means that the more one searches white people for racism, the less likely one is to find it and the more likely one is to make the mistake of believing that removing white people from power will end racism. Racism is an utterly ineffable and elusive something that forever pervades everything, even when no racists can be located and even when the whiteness that operates it cannot be defined.
In case the reader has been wondering just what the “technologies of white violence” might be, I note that the author defines them as “structures of dominance.” These structures are “the doing-ness of material realities such as race, racism, and whiteness” (emphasis mine). Explaining this definition, the author cites “scholars” who have paraphrased the original definition of technology given by the postmodern theorist Michel Foucault: “any assemblage of knowledge, practices, techniques, and discourses used by human beings on others or on themselves to achieve particular ends.”
According to this definition, everything that humans do is a “technology.” Stewart, however, prefers a more “denotative” definition of technology, which he draws from the Oxford English Dictionary: “machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.” That hardly characterizes what he refers to with the term “technology.” He follows this definition with a tortured statement about the technologies of white violence: “The iterations of TwV are developed from an application of whiteness and the knowledge of its purpose as held by those who espouse white supremacy.” As in all CRT texts, we are in the throes of endless tautologies, given definitions that include the words being defined. Whiteness is what operates the technologies of white violence. The technologies of white violence are applications of whiteness wielded by those who espouse white supremacy. Got it? Good. You’re well on your way to becoming a critical race theorist.
The rest of the essay consists of hyperbolic whining about so-called white violence. “Malicious white terror,” “rhetorical white innocence,” and “pacifying white concessions” are examples of TwV, none of which involve any acts of violence at all. They consist of verbal infractions undertaken by those wielding these “technologies.” The mother of all grievance studies, CRT is obsessed with microaggressions such as TwV and other perceived or imagined slights.
Stewart’s article is remarkable for its nonsensical word salad and ridiculous pretentions to erudition. CRT “scholars” like Stewart reuse plug-and-play phrases and reconfigure them to imitate what they imagine to be sophisticated writing. I’ll refrain from citing further examples because the foregoing should be sufficient to demonstrate my point. Suffice it to say that the text is a parody of itself and of academic discourse more generally. CRT makes fools of those who engage in it and discredits whatever legitimate scholarship still goes on in academia today. That academic institutions foster such tripe is evidence of the depths to which the academy has fallen.
Such muddied and muddled thinking can only have deleterious consequences when it reaches a critical mass. The circular argumentation and evidence-free “qualitative” claims drawn from “stories” or other “narratives” exacerbate our epistemic crisis and further thicken the postmodern miasma in which we find ourselves today. Whatever its effects on race relations, and they are decidedly negative, CRT can be dismissed on academic and scholarly grounds alone. It’s well past time that the halls of academe were emptied of such rhetorical rubbish.
"Critical Race Theory: Academic Malfeasance and Fraudulence" by Michael Rectenwald is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us