So, that marks the history of both Neoplatonists. The nihilism of postmodernity follows its conclusion that power acts through everyone, all the time because we, what is most important, through the way in which we create meaning and share it through language, so that discourses are all agents of power, which is everywhere and fully permeates society. Therefore, postmodernists had no hope of a revolution that would overthrow oppressive power, but instead sought to tear down all the buildings of society to the level of personal lived experience, which was the only thing they could imagine without mediation. Therefore, existentialism, another French invention, is felt here quite deeply.
In this sense, postmodernism is actually more post-Marxist than anything else. Critical race theory is rapidly becoming America's new institutional orthodoxy. However, most Americans have never heard of it, and of those who have, many don't understand it. We need to know what it is in order to know how to combat it.
To explain the critical theory of race, it is useful to begin with a brief history of Marxism. But instead of abandoning 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 between capitalists and workers, they replaced race with class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories. However, the radical left has proven to be resilient and enduring, and that's where the critical theory of race comes into play.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of Marxism based on identity. Relegated for many years to little-known universities and academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been incorporated into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resource departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resource modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula. Unlike equality, equity, as defined and promoted by critical race theorists, is little more than reformulated Marxism.
In the name of equity, Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law professor and critical racial theorist, has proposed suspending private property rights, confiscating land and wealth and redistributing them according to racial criteria. Kendi, who heads the Center for Anti-Racist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Anti-Racism. This department would be independent of (that is,. A form of government based on equity would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality before the law, federalism and freedom of expression.
These would be replaced by the redistribution of wealth based on race, group rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I wrote a series of reports focusing on the critical theory of race in the federal government. The FBI was organizing workshops on the theory of intersectionality. The Department of Homeland Security told white employees that they were committing “microinequities” and that they had been “socialized” to perform oppressive functions.
The Department of the Treasury organized a training session in which staff members were informed that “virtually all whites contribute to racism and that they must convert “all members of the federal government to the ideology of “anti-racism”. And Sandia National Laboratories, which design the United States nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day re-education camp, where they were told that “white male culture was analogous to that of the “KKK “, white supremacists and “mass killings”. Executives were then forced to give up their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color. This year, I produced another series of reports focusing on the critical theory of race in education.
In Cupertino, California. In Springfield, Missouri. This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions presented themselves as neutral, technocratic and oriented towards a generalized perception of the public good.
Today, under the growing dominance of critical racial theory and related ideologies, they are turning against the American people. This is not limited to the permanent bureaucracy of Washington, DC, but it also applies to state institutions, even the red states. It's spreading to county public health departments, small school districts in the Midwest, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all our institutions.
Until now, attempts to stop the invasion of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are several reasons for this. Second, theorists critical of race have constructed their argument as a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of the “white fragility”, the unconscious bias or the “internalized white supremacy” of a dissident.
I have seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents dozens of times in my reports. Diversity instructors will make outrageous statements, such as “all whites are inherently oppressive” or “white teachers are guilty of murdering spirits” to black children, and then, when faced with a disagreement, they will adopt a condescending tone and explain that participants who feel “defensive” or “angry” react out of guilt and shame. Dissidents are instructed to remain silent, “let themselves be carried away by unrest” and accept their “complicity” in white supremacy. Third, Americans across the political spectrum have not been able to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion.
Their premise that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine that history and learn from it, is undeniable. However, his revolutionary conclusion that the United States was founded and defined on racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution and our way of life should be overthrown is not correct, much less necessarily. Fourthly and finally, writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against the critical theory of race have tended to approach it at a theoretical level, highlighting the logical contradictions of theory and the dishonest narrative of history. These criticisms are worthwhile and good, but they transfer the debate to the academic arena, a favorable terrain for defenders of the critical theory of race.
They do not force the defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the field of politics. The critical theory of race is no longer simply an academic question, it has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, he is rapidly achieving cultural hegemony in public institutions in the United States. 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 all levels. Theorists critical of race must be confronted and forced to talk about the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula that teach that “all whites participate in the perpetuation of systemic racism”? Do they support public schools that instruct white parents to become “white traitors” and to advocate for the “abolition of whites”? Do you want those who work in the government to be required to undergo this type of re-education? What about managers and workers in American companies? What about the men and women of our armed forces?. In fact, the critical theory of race is not a theory at all.
Nor is it a perspective of teaching history. It's racism and intolerance, and not only that, it's an attempt to revive a failed Marxist agenda. .
