↓
 
Home » Critical race theory is a victimization cult

Critical race theory is a victimization cult

The New Neo Posted on by

Indeed.

Actually – beware of all theories that contain the word “critical.”

I’ve also been thinking lately that we’ve come a long way since 2008 in Obama’s program to fundamentally transform America, haven’t we? He kept it purposely vague, but remember when what a lot of voters thought he meant was that he’d bring us together, healing divisions? Despite the indications that he was actually a person with a strong leftist agenda that he was semi-hiding, a lot of people simply wanted to believe in him and therefore did believe in him.

And in particular, remember when Obama’s close and long relationship with the America-hating Reverend Wright (“white folks greed runs a world in need”) was revealed? In 2008 Obama felt he had to distance himself from Wright in order to win the election. But now, twelve years later, Reverend Wright looks relatively sedate. A candidate running in 2020 in the present atmosphere wouldn’t need to repudiate a relationship with Wright. On the contrary, it would be a feature, not a bug.

Comments

Critical race theory is a victimization cult — 15 Comments

  1. A petulant and entitled young woman, Claira Janover (with a no doubt worthless degree from Harvard) is now cloaking herself in the mantle of victimhood for losing her job at Deloitte as a result of having made a vicious short video on TikTok (linked to the CCP) on behalf of BLM. She is now raising money on GoFundMe by claiming that “evil Trump supporters” conspired on social media to have her dismissed from her position, although anyone listening to her barely literate ramblings would wonder how she was ever admitted into Harvard in the first place and how anyone would ever have wanted to hire her.

  3. I knew a black female school principal whose doctoral dissertation topic dealt with critical race theory applied to black female principals. The school district did not renew her initial multi-year contract as a school principal. Suffice it to say that in her first semester as principal, nearly half the teaching staff signed a grievance petition against her. This could not be attributed to race, as staff esteemed her predecessor- promoted to a central office supervisory position- who was several shades darker than her successor. As the non-renewed principal had spent some years at the school as an assistant principal, she already knew staff, students, and school. So, the petition didn’t reflect a newbie clashing with entrenched habits. (Consensus was that school discipline was worse- one reason many signed the petition.)

    She was merely incompetent as a principal, whatever claims she may have made regarding “critical race theory” and her performance as a principal.

    Like Neo, when I hear “critical race theory,” I assume there is a con going on.

  4. born out of feminism, a victim based cult… normalized to the point we dont see it that way… AND socialist/communist based too… did you unpack your knapsack today?

    Victim feminism is a term used by some liberal and libertarian feminists in the 1990s to contrast their conceptions of feminism with other feminists who they view as reinforcing the idea that women are weak or lacking in agency, and therefore need to be protected. Amongst sociologists, it has come more into use to describe a similar manifestation of feminism in the 2010s, particularly on college campuses in the US, part of a rising moral “culture of victimhood”, as opposed to other dominant moral cultures like the “culture of honor” and the “culture of dignity”

    With so many labels, it means truly nothing:

    Anarcha-feminism
    Atheist feminism
    Black feminism
    Chicana feminism
    Christian feminism
    Conservative feminism
    Cultural feminism
    Difference feminism
    Equality feminism
    Ecofeminism
    Fat feminism
    Feminist anthropology
    Feminist sociology
    First-wave feminism
    Fourth-wave feminism
    French feminism
    Global feminism
    Hip-hop feminism
    Indigenous feminism
    Individualist feminism
    Islamic feminism
    Jewish feminism
    Lesbian feminism
    Lipstick feminism
    Liberal feminism
    Material feminism
    Marxist feminism
    Networked feminism
    Neo feminism
    New feminism
    Postcolonial feminism
    Postmodern feminism
    Post-structural feminism
    Pro-feminism
    Pro-life feminism
    Radical feminism
    Separatist feminism
    Second-wave feminism
    Sex-positive feminism
    Sikh feminism
    Socialist feminism
    Standpoint feminism
    State feminism
    Structuralist feminism
    Third-wave feminism
    Transfeminism
    Transnational feminism

  5. I knew a black female school principal whose doctoral dissertation topic dealt with critical race theory applied to black female principals.

    Again, research degrees awarded by teacher-training programs are spurious, and would be so even if teacher-training programs were not themselves spurious. If we were serious about training teachers, such programs would offer 8 or 9 sorts of certificate, each of which would have a different set of prerequisites. Every basic certificate would require you pass a screening examination to be admitted to the program and supplementary examinations for certain programs. A program would consist of a menu of methods courses (4-16, depending on the certificate sought), an unpaid internship of < year, and a stipended apprenticeship of a year. Enhancements to your certificate would consist of passing additional examinations or an additional year of apprenticeship. Administrator training programs would be in a separate faculty, would recruit experienced school teachers, and consist of something along the lines of one year of tests-and-measurements psychology and one year of public administration courses. The only people writing dissertations would be people studying the psychology of learning, which they'd do in the psychology department, not the teacher-training faculty.

  6. I heard of a young black female from Chicago who was admitted to Princeton University in 1981. Her senior thesis was titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” As the late Christoper Hitchens wrote, “To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.”

  7. Thank you, Neo! It is such a relief to see someone else make this connection! I keep suggesting this to my friends only to be met with blank stares. People cannot seem to see the connection between all this unfolding insanity and the “fundamental change” that Obama promised us. It is all exactly what he promised us he would do.

    I went to social work school back in 2005-07 and almost had a nervous breakdown trying to stomach the critical theories being taught (though they weren’t yet called that). It was a nightmare and I was barely able to complete my final paper which required whites to write about their privilege and people of color to write about how they’d been oppressed. I was horrified, but any attempts to express my concern were met with patronizing expressions of “concern” that I was just blinded by my white privilege and therefore unable to clearly see myself. Every little misunderstanding or irritation between people in that program was turned into a dramatic race battle that often resulted in faculty helping to “mediate” (aka re-educate). I wanted to scream at them that they were all insane. The readings were almost comical they were so absurd in what they dared to suggest, but then it was terrifying to watch a vast majority of the students read and internalize this illogical, incredibly poorly written, warped thinking as gospel. I got to the point that I was literally having panic attacks before class. At the end of the year one professor “congratulated” me that I certainly was stubborn in my beliefs. I wish I had had the presence of mind to reply that it was just because I was immune to brainwashing.

    When Obama came on the scene a few years later I had a visceral reaction to him. I felt he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and I heard underlying his carefully crafted words his intention to bring about the same sort of societal change that was being taught in the social work program. Yet so few people seemed to understand the language he was actually speaking and what that meant moving forward.

    Fast forward to now and it’s all coming to a culmination and the things I feared and hated in social work school have metastasized into almost every aspect of the culture at large. I really do think Obama spend eight years spreading the seeds of this poisonous and destructive mentality, setting the foundation for its insidious spread, and I imagine part of the tremendous rage over Trump’s being elected is that he was a major threat to the final transformation that was so eagerly anticipated by a small but powerful minority. That minority has grown in these past several years and the educational indoctrination appears to have completely kicked in. I just came across James Lindsay’s work the other day from another commenter here (thank you!!!) and have felt indescribable relief at finally having the words to so accurately capture this horrendous and scary cult-like philosophy that I could never adequately explain after social work school. It is such a relief to hear that others also see it and understand the tremendous threat that it poses. I just never could understand how a field that purported to want to help the less fortunate would embrace a philosophy that would so clearly cause much greater and deeper harm. And now we have it at the societal level. Systemic racism is certainly alive and well, just not remotely in the direction that is being claimed.

  10. What moved me to suspicion of and then opposition to Obama was the association with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, both of whom I was extremely familiar with going back to when Dohrn led the walkout of what became the Weatherman faction from SDS in 1969.

    They professed the unshakeable belief that blacks should be the vanguard of the Revolution and invested in the notion that this should be personified by Fred Hampton of the Chicago Black Panthers. It was when he was shot and killed by police that they went “underground” and began the campaign of bombings and bank robberies that would go on for years.

    The Weatherman name came from the Dylan song in which he said “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” To those who actually had dealings with the group, who were mostly arrogant rich kids, this became amended to: “You don’t need a rectal thermometer to figure out who the assholes are.”

    The reason they were so hard to infiltrate was that unknowns had to submit to the “acid test” in which they were given megadoses of LSD and then forced to have homosexual or gangbang-style sex in order to demonstrate how free of hang-ups they were, then remorsely interrogated after a couple of days without sleep. It was said Ayers was particularly sadistic in these sessions.

    And so, after all these years, now they had their new Fred Hampton, their black candidate to serve as “vanguard of the Revolution.” (It’s even been said that Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama’s book, which sounds wacky but for the fact that Obama’s SAT scores and college grades remain unavailable although it’s pushed hard that he’s so smart. Likewise, no editorials by him although he was named editor of the Harvard Law Review, which may be unprecedented.)

    So Reverend Wright was unnecessary to complete the picture for me.

  11. On another of the myriad controversies of the day:

    https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/black-white-or-other-debate-about-jesus-race-about-more-skin-color

    The Bible doesn’t reveal Jesus’ skin color, but what we do know is that he came to earth as a Jew born in the Middle East.

    “Jews have always been considered white under the U.S. Census Bureau standards,” says Charlotte Allen, author of the book, “The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.” “Suddenly there’s kind of a movement among radical leftists to say that all these people are not white.”

    There aren’t any portraits of Jesus or even any extant color images of first century Jews. However, clues have emerged, including the excavation of the third-century Dura-Europos Synagogue in modern Syria, which unearthed biblically-themed murals showing what the congregation’s Jewish ancestors must have looked like.

    “Those people have light-tanned skin just as Mediterranean people do today,” Allen says. “We can, I think, safely infer that Jews of the first century probably have the same kind of complexion, a sort of general Mediterranean complexion that until very recently just would have been classified as white in the way that Italians and Greeks are classified as white.”

    Of course, the color white doesn’t mean Jesus bore any resemblance to a blonde, blue-eyed modern-day white person. Rather, the images that appeared in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries reflected the surrounding culture of their time.

    “In Europe, Jesus did become much paler,” says Allen. “We can blame the Italian Renaissance [for] that. They liked blondes.”

    I have seen reports on how the women of that era bleached their own hair, which is not something simple, although they couldn’t do much about the eyes. It is well-known that the slave-runners in the Middle East and North Africa got a premium price for their captured European blondes.

    It is true that people within certain cultures typically represent Jesus the way they see Him. Jesus is depicted as black, Hispanic and Asian around the world, the images varying with the disparate cultural settings from which they emerge.

    But it’s those overtly white images of Jesus that today’s identity left rejects. They believe it’s not an accurate depiction of what Jesus looked like. More significantly, they see a link between the whiteness of Jesus and a society dominated by white power.

    But the black, Hispanic, and Asian images of a Middle Eastern man with an olive-complexion are not a problem, of course, even though they are found in societies dominated by black (African), Hispanic (South American), and Asian (Asia) power.

    Discussions about the color of Jesus have been present throughout history, especially recently. Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright, for example, called Jesus “a poor black man.” Martin Luther King addressed this question during the civil rights movement, saying at the time, “The color of Jesus’ skin is of little or no consequence.” In the 1960s, statues of Jesus were covered with black paint during the Detroit riots.

    Nobody listens to the Reverend King anymore of course. They have not yet descended to calling him a white supremacist, as they have Candace Owens, but that will probably happen eventually.

    The identity left in America sees this battle over white Jesus as a way of pushing back against what it perceives as enduring, systemic social, economic and cultural privileges afforded to whites. In light of that guiding philosophy, Blum questions the need to depict Jesus as white.

    “Does white Jesus help anyone move forward in these dynamics, or is this white Jesus an impediment to it?” he asks. “If you are unwilling to give up a clearly untrue image of this God — man — Jesus, how am I ever supposed to convince you that this person here on the ground getting choked, that their life truly deeply matters?”

    Never mind that the skin color of some (by no means all) iconic images has no actual relationship to whether or not most people (excepting a miniscule faction in the US, I’ll give him that qualified caveat) are able and willing, as has been conclusively demonstrated even by the Orange Man himself, to condemn the fatal choking of a man whose life mattered, because every life matters to God our Heavenly Father, and thus every life matters to us.
    But you can’t say THAT anymore, can you?

    That message is resonating with some in the church body. The Archbishop of Canterbury in England recently said representations of Jesus as white should be reconsidered. Within days of this, St. Albans Cathedral in the U.K. announced it will install a 9-foot painting of “The Last Supper” with a black Jesus.

    So, the deal is to replace one clearly untrue image (the pasty-white European one) with another clearly untrue image (a black African one), rather than everyone going with the authentic coffee-white Middle Eastern one.

    But the issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.

    Ultimately, the question of whether Jesus is white or not is, for those on both sides of the debate, about more, much more, than just skin color.

    Critics of removing white Jesus statues and portraits see the movement as a proxy for a larger assault on Western Civilization and Christianity itself.

    “It really has to do with ideology more than actual skin color,” says Allen. “It is an effort to remove Jesus from Christianity as we know it and to create a different kind of Jesus who basically is a Marxist, anarchist revolutionary who wanted to overthrow the existing order.”

    Indeed, Shaun King says images of a white Jesus are “tools of oppression” and must be removed. Some pastors say militant activists like King and others like him will see resistance if they start trying to vandalize church property.

    “It’s a terroristic threat against Christians,” says Pastor Brian Gibson of the movement called Peaceably Gather. “It’s not about defending white Jesus,” he says. “It’s about defending sacred ground and holy spaces … Just because there’s some depictions that make him look more Anglo does not give you the right to deface or destroy holy ground or property.”

    I would say they want to color Jesus red, but that conveys an entirely different meaning since the advent of the media-driven red state vs blue state model, which was set up deliberately to confuse the prior identification of Red with Communism.

  12. I was reading through Neo’s old post on Obama, which was published before I started reading her blog, and I recognized many familiar names in the comments.
    As she had recently memorialized this particular commenter, I payed particular attention to his observations, and recommend them to you all.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2008/10/13/obama-the-soft-socialist/#comment-88618

    FredHjr on October 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm said:

    You can skip past the aside about Dostoevsky, although it was interesting, to get to the topical portion. As with most of Fred’s comments that I have encountered in these wayback machine excursions, it can’t really be appreciated in a short excerpt.

    This remark, however, is both pithy and pertinent.

    Oldflyer on October 13, 2008 at 4:53 pm said:
    My feeling is that Statism has its fingers on our throats already. Too many folks perceive it as a caress, but it will be a very easy matter to turn it into a choke hold.

  13. There were more good comments (as usual), and it was most interesting to see the predictions about who would win the election. Some were sure Obama would lose, for credible reasons that didn’t pan out — mostly because McCain was a terrible candidate and a worse campaigner IMNSHO (but still preferable to Obama).
    This is kind of a “hit parade” of observations which seemed to me to still be relevant; which — after an 8-year-build-up — led to the election of Donald Trump; and which are recognized problems that are still with us 12 years later.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2008/10/13/obama-the-soft-socialist/

    goy on October 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm said: (class warfare promoted by leftists)
    FredHjr on October 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm said: (more on Marxism)
    Rick in NY on October 13, 2008 at 8:21 pm said: (half-right in his predictions)
    Baklava on October 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm said: (evidence didn’t work then either)
    strcpy on October 13, 2008 at 11:14 pm said: ( controlling people systems is like controlling software programs – breaks down when complexity increases)

    Palladbust on October 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm said:
    (I will just lift the quote from Reagan)

    “You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

    You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.”
    “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

    Beverly on October 13, 2008 at 11:51 pm said:
    (excerpt about Islamic jihad attacks)

    This goes right to what I’ve been stunned by: the Left’s indecent haste to jettison ALL their alleged principles — civil rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech, anti-patriarchal systems, gay rights, opposition to genocide, opposition to theocracy — the instant a non-white group attacks America. So, judging by the fruits of this particular tree, their true guiding principles are hatred of whites and hatred of America. Everything else is shoved into the industrial shredder feet-first.

    So Saddam Hussein of crimes innumerable, becomes a Victim.

    sergey on October 14, 2008 at 2:34 am said: (centralised planning always fails; punishing success and rewarding failure, aka social justice, also fails)

    Baklava on October 14, 2008 at 10:22 am said: (reprioritize what we spend tax money on)

    Artfldgr on October 14, 2008 at 3:51 pm said:
    (first there is a long but interesting article/book excerpt on Communists tactics and stratagems, which will sound quite familiar 12 years on; then this accurate prediction)

    there is no such thing as soft socialism…
    its only soft when it cant declare itself, and others may kick them out…
    but once that cant happen, they come around full flower…
    …
    how long before obama … will change the constitution?

    (Although he couldn’t change it literally, through Article V, he changed a lot with his phone and pen, and the Supreme Court has let most of it stand.)

    Artfldgr on October 14, 2008 at 6:44 pm said: (on the tax & spend bait & switch)

    they raise taxes to help bridges, then they shift that to social programs. the bridges are not maintained, and so they get a crisis, which gets them emergency funding for the bridge.

    so by losing they can win, because we will not punish the entity in office for screwing things up purposefully to install socialism.

    in any place where socialism replaces the purpose of the state in a free nation, it first guts infrastructure without the people noticing the jiggering of the budget.

    FredHjr on October 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm said:
    COLLECTIVISM IS THE BORG. FIGHT THE BORG AND STAND FOR LIBERTY AND THE CONSTITUTION!

  14. “Critical” Theory
    “Social” justice
    Critical theory of social justice?
    Racist!!!!! Cancel them!

  15. Maybe Obama’s program for the transformation of America is proceeding as per plan. Maybe his two-term presidency was just laying the ground work for getting the machinery in place and coordinating financing and planning efforts.

    Think of his earlier educational and professional background and experience, and consider how insignificant his second term was – and how isolated he kept himself, compared to the present occupant. Even as a lame duck, he was disinterested.

    What is happening in the US right now is much more of an indicative product of Obama’s background and experience up to his Presidency. This would be the kind of work he’d be most comfortable with.

    This is the transformation he has in mind for his Legacy. The Presidency leading up to it just seals his name as the motivational force driving it, for posterity.

Leave a Reply

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

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑