To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism.
Originally, the Marxist left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Karl Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: The workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class and usher in a new socialist society.
During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million people. They are remembered for gulags, show trials, executions and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.
By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, which had large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream — the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work and good citizenship.
But rather than abandon their political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the US lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision, President Lyndon Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.
But the radical left has proved resilient and enduring — which is where critical race theory comes in.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks and school curricula.
Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.”
Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government and would have the power to nullify, veto or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”
One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since, according to Kendi, “in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist.”
In other words, identity is the means; Marxism is the end.
An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination and omnipotent bureaucratic authority.
Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation: Critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.
What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees that they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which design America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day re-education camp where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and to write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.
This year, many reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, Calif., an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Mo., a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”
In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.”
There exists a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating — from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.
This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic and oriented toward broadly held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but is true as well of institutions in the states — even red states. It is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.
So far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion.
Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.
Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim — such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children” — and then, when confronted with disagreement, adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise — that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history — is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion — that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution and our way of life should be overthrown — does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.
Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history.
These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm — friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.
No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in America’s public institutions. It is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.
Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of re-education? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military?
How about every one of us?
There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grass-roots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.
We already see examples of gov-ernmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for gov-ernors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. Some have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).
On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.
In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.
Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.
Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop io, 20, 100, 1,000, L000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.
Truth and justice are on our side but only If we can muster the courage to outright fight for it!. ■
ADOPTING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS ADVOCATING THE ABHORRENT VIEWPOINT THAT BLACKS SHOULD FOREVER BE REGARDED AS HELPLESS VICTIMS AND THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF SUCCESS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SKILLS, TALENTS OR HARD WORK LEVELS.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS TEACHING THE PRECISE TRUE AND CORRECT DEFINITION OF RACISM AT ITS CORE IN AND OF ITSELF.
The only difference between skinheads and the ‘woke’ left is that the ‘woke’ left hides its racism under cover of nice-sounding words such as ‘fact-finding’, ‘equity’, ‘social justice and of course, ‘anti-racism’. PERIOD. FULL STOP
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST SEE FOR CONSERVATIVES!
SHE PUTS VIRTUALLY ALL CONSERVATIVES TO SHAME. TO SHAME!
Hello,
If you clicked on this headline to see if its talking about yet another shooting in the United States, the answer is no.
It’s not talking about particular shootings so much as it’s talking about headlines. It is well known that a large section of the consumer market only consumes the headline of any given informative or opinion piece, an even larger segment only consume the headline and maybe a paragraph or two… so this is the last paragraph some of you will read.
But those with enough intelligence and due dilligence will read on.
You may have noticed an astonishing increase in the number of shooting related headlines permeating the news. If you did, that is deliberate. People click them because tragedy sells, it grabs attention, at the very least seeing the headline sparks a tiny bit of memory and the consumer can ‘fill in the rest’ without reading.
Both getting the click and showing the headline have value for various entities. Especially media entities who are agenda aligned, like perhaps a network noted for being decidedly anti-2A (but they assure you they aren’t, they’re just ‘reasonable’), but that’s hypothetical… obviously.
If you click, they get the view. They can even get that view while accurately (or reasonably accurately) portraying an event below the headline. They don’t need to overly dilute the story, they did so in the headline and more people consume the headline. So for every person that read and understood the event from the piece, multiple people based their understanding of the event solely on the headline they read.
These entities will capitalize on the power of their headline. They will use that headline to shape the formative thoughts about an event, even as they accurately portray the events in the follow-on narrative, even as that narrative calls into question the particular and sometimes rather misleading context of the headline itself. That headline shaped more thoughts than the rest of the piece.
They are weaponizing the headline so that you, Joe & Jane Public, will fill in rest based upon previous context from other cognitively linked events and formative context.
Let’s take this example:
This is actually a fairly tame example of what we are discussing. Other headlines immediately thrust this into the spotlight as another mass shooting, similar to FedEx. “9 Children Shot…” is another variant I’ve seen that is a little more leading, from People.com.
Yet – No arrests have been made and the sheriff, Mike Tregre, said that “not one” witness has given authorities a formal statement about what happened.
Hmmm, why would that be? This happened in front of 60 people and yet nobody is talking?
More than 60 people were gathered at the party when an argument broke out between two groups with an ongoing feud, authorities said.
Ah, there it is. This was a gang fight. Oh… sorry, gang is a “charged” term, I meant this was a fight between two groups who are known to be hostile toward each other usually due to competition and rivalries linked to criminal activities. The ‘children’ involved were all teens, with the exception of a 12-year-old wounded in both legs. There was one 13-year-old that may yet qualify as a ‘child’ in the maternal and paternal sense (the one People headline is trying to invoke), but the remainder were 14 to 17 years old. That age where people can be tried as fully cognizant adults for what occurred.
So in that case, with all that context, with a working understanding of what happened (two groups had beef at the same party and things got bloody/territorial/score settling, a far from unheard of event) why would People headline it “9 Children Shot and Injured at Birthday Party” and “12-year-old” gets a ton of emphasis too.
Those are factual statements in the headlines… from a certain point of view (thanks there Obi-wan), however the formative initial impression is drastically different than the contextualized reality.
For every person who clicks, reads, and understands, they can get ten (actually far more when you look at click-thru metrics) who will see the headlines and simply assume some variation of, ‘Oh no, somebody attacked a kids birthday party! It’s all this gun violence! Kids are being shot at birthday parties! We must do something!!‘ and that thought is far more valuable, when pushing gun control legislation.
It is profitable to make you, the consumer, imagine it was a bunch of small children in conical birthday hats who were gunned down with no provocation. It is less profitable, towards certain goals, to convey that this was two groups who got into a fight, with a known history of conflict, and that nobody who witnessed the event is talking to authorities about it. Likely because they are all connected to the participants in the fight enough that they would rather take care of the aftermath ‘in-house’ as it were, instead of involving the repercussions associated with law enforcement.
Law enforcement involvement is clearly not welcome or desired in this instance, that is abundantly clear. But we didn’t get a headline along the lines of…
With two short sentences, that conveyed a very accurate summation of the events and painted a picture for all those who won’t click on the story. A fight occurred, it occurred between young people, guns were used, 9 young people were injured. Anyone with an extra neuron to rub against the first one can put together a reasonable image of what took place. The only lacking element from my headline is that the youngest person injured was 12, not a teenager yet. Who’s birthday party, or rather how old the child whose party it was, is not very relevant to the event.
Those three actual headlines do not convey the event in nearly so accurate terms, they pick an exploitable fact about the event to shape public opinion. Kids or Children were shot at a birthday party. This is to provoke a very deliberate image.
This is the same common obfuscationary practice that has led to such rampant distrust of “mainstream media” but it continues to shape public perception. Anyone reading the story realizes the source was less than forthright in their headline, as in the headline did not preview and shape the story and the reading of the rest filled in the details. Instead it ‘subverts your expectations’ or some such and you’re left realizing, ‘oh, that’s what they meant by “children” shot at a birthday party’ by the end of the reading.
This is the news, we don’t need to bury the lead in a little mystery or creative misdirection in order to report it… unless that creative misdirection serves a public opinion purpose. Saying nine children got shot at a birthday party conjures a more raw and evocative image than saying nine teenagers and a twelve-year-old got shot during a fight and nobody is snitching to the cops. These writer/reporters know that, that is why headlines read the way they do. This is why it seems like we are having an insanely violent spring full of shootings. (fun fact: violence has always trended seasonally, especially in areas where winter is prohibitively cold)
Outlets like Vox, People, CNN and virtually all other left leaning so-called media outlets are open advocates for more gun control, so they have additional incentives to grab onto every story they can where it is possible to bury the lead and evoke the public perception to push the agenda they seek. It’s also why coverage isn’t even. The more easily emotionally exploitive events, like the FedEx and Massage Parlor slayings, get more traction than something like the Phillip Adams multiple-murder/suicide.
It’s why teenage toughs who got into a gunfight spat at a neighborhood party for a 12-year-old got reported as, “9 Children Shot…” instead.
fox files 
Written
on 26.April.2021.