Oh Africa, Brave Africa: A Return to Critical Race Theory
Western culture as an export fundamentally transformed the lands in which it took root, with the sons and daughters of Europe as its carriers. It was not, is not, and cannot be extricable from the race that produced it any more than you could re-create Japan as a “proposition nation” comprised of Mexicans, Indians, and Congolese. Such neo-con delusions—in the American context introduced by the Jewish Ben Wattenberg—have conjoined with critical theory to produce a freakish hybrid of Bolshevik “logic” that belies those very “propositions” America stands for. Consider the following synopsis of critical race theory from Harvard University’s website:
Critical race theorists thus try to combine pragmatist and utopian visions...Critical race scholars identify and embrace a radical tradition of race-conscious mobilization as an empowerment strategy for African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and other persons of color...They oppose apparently neutral rules, such as color-blindness, and one-person, one-vote… Several critical race theorists became mobilized in the 1980s by incidents of hate speech on college campuses and elsewhere. They developed analyses of the injuries experienced by students of color who were targets of such incidents and critiques of the prevailing First Amendment/freedom of speech approach taken by the campus administrators. Words do wound, they argued. They worked to articulate codes for regulating campus speech and defended those codes against First Amendment challenges offered by both theorists and plaintiffs in courts. Noting that freedom of speech is never given absolute protection, they argued that curbs on hate speech would have much in common with existing defamation and obscenity laws and the doctrines excluding fighting words and threats from First Amendment protection. They argued that law, and the First Amendment, could be interpreted to fight subordination. They also argued that the First Amendment’s values of self-fulfillment, knowledge, and participation are undermined, not served, when hate speech gains legal protection. Although no court upheld hate speech codes against First Amendment challenges, the critical race theorists’ effort altered the terms of the debate and taught many about the kinds of injuries tolerated in the name of the First Amendment.
Given the “injuriousness” permitted by the First Amendment, abridgement of said amendment is necessary in the form of “hate speech” laws and other legal protections rendering all protected groups beyond reproach and legally immune from criticism. Anti-Semitism laws in Europe and now South Carolina are one such example of the betrayal of what the First Amendment is supposed to guarantee. If the United States is only a set of principles that anyone can adopt, this clearly betrays that notion. It explicitly acknowledges that American values are at odds with those of “people of color” and Jews. Critical race theory rejects colorblind merit, it rejects the logos and objectivity, and instead of “combating stereotypes” as its adherents initially claim, it is at its heart a project aimed at demonizing whites and forcing them into positions of subservience, if not ultimately eradicating us. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual, anti-Western, and anti-white.
Critical race theory is just one aspect of Cultural Marxist considerations of “identity” explained in the theory of intersectionality built on a decidedly un-academic or even provable foundation. As Bill Barlow writes:
Critical Race theory not only directs how to structure the university, but also how to structure the relation of the individual to the state. Racially-based taxes, racially-based employment quotas, racially-based redistributions of wealth: none would be beyond the theoretical horizon of Critical Race theory. All are justified by an appeal to inadequate racial justice, an appeal that can neither be proved nor disproved, an appeal that can just as easily be used for naked racial subordination. All fall within a context where speech labeled as “hurtful” and “racist” could be punishable by law, and opponents of the racial regime would be silenced.
The precepts of critical race theory, and critical theory in general, are by definition authoritarian. As Cheryl Harris decrees:
Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute; rather, they will be considered against a societal requirement for affirmative action...In essence this conception of affirmative action is moving towards reallocation of power.
We can observe the natural end-point of this kind of “thinking” in action in the former Rhodesia, Namibia, and South Africa, and though we are not there yet, it is moving toward its advanced stages in the United States as well. The poisonousness of critical theory in general and critical race theory (often in tandem with post-colonialism) specifically is certainly not limited to the ethnic cleansings in Africa or the authoritarian bid for power by the “Coalition of the Fringes” in the United States. The first critical race theory seminar in the UK took place in November 2006 in Manchester, England, and though its mind-rot hasn’t spread to the degree it has in the United States, the Bolshevik influence in British positions of power, particularly the media, has given platform to anti-white mouthpieces such as the half-Jewish Ghanaian Afua Hirsch and Jewish “migration” advocate/historian Simon Schama. The anti-white rhetoric in the UK, though less pervasive, is often even harsher than that in the US, perhaps as compensation. The state has certainly thrown its entire legal apparatus behind white dispossession, and in extremely heavy-handed fashion. As I discussed in “Our Goose Is Cucked,” Bolshevik/Cult-Marx control of Canadian media and academe has seen the perception of the Great White North shift to the Great Brown Melting-Pot in record time.
Intersectional grievance-mongering starts by proclaiming the moral imperative of equal representation as long as it isn’t too strenuous or doesn’t involve an increased risk of death in the workplace, jobs in marketing or as college diversity coordinators or non-profit desk-jockeying is the order of the day. The goal-posts then inevitably move to where whites need to “step aside” from positions of power, and finally to nakedly genocidal rhetoric. Consider Sarah Jeong and the non-reaction (by the Left) to her stance on “Canceling Whiteness.”
Race is, apparently, a social construct yet whites bear the genetic stain of the Mark of Cain. The Women’s March has an “algorithm” for “marginalized peoples,” where they speak strictly of identity in not only a categorical sense—trans, “indigenous folk”—but again in unyielding, fixed binaries, which is rather peculiar for an ideology obsessed with pan-sexuality, gender-fluidity, and the like. Instead we hear about “white women trying to make it all about themselves…” While that isn’t necessarily inaccurate in the main, the sentiment aims at something quite different than just the entitlement white, and frankly all, women feel in contemporary society. That is a separate, but still pressing, issue. Outside of the obvious incongruence of this school of “thought,” what sticks out is the vilification of one race and one race only, and the use of that race as a scapegoat for every other race’s shortcomings. Yet despite the inherent evil of whites and Western civilization, it is apparently a human right to have access to us and the kinds of societies we build. Recalling our earlier discussion of property rights, Gloria J. Ladson-Billings of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Education states that:
Whiteness [is] the ultimate property which whites alone can possess. It is valuable and is property. The “property functions of whiteness”—rights to disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the absolute right to exclude—make the American dream a more likely and attainable reality for whites as citizens. For a critical race theory critic, the white skin color that some Americans possess is like owning a piece of property. It grants privileges to the owner that a renter (or a person of color) would not be afforded.
There’s a lot to consider there, but let me start with this: Jews do in fact “rent whiteness” when it is beneficial to them; by Ladson-Billings’s logic, when Jews “pass,” this is theft. Similarly, many mixed-race individuals such as the pop star Halsey “pass” when it is beneficial but use their colored card to critique whiteness, such as her asinine criticism of hotel shampoos, when it serves to signal a different kind of status. To my way of thinking this is the ultimate privilege, especially when you not only make the rules, but change them whenever it becomes expedient. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech used to be the litmus test for the future, post-color America, but when parity failed to be achieved, not because of racism but because of black dysfunction and cognitive disparities, the critical race theorists rejected merit as a valid criterion.
Returning to Ladson-Billings’s concept of “whiteness as property,” such a lens makes sense in the context of a wholly materialistic Left that not only uncritically supports consumer culture and environmental degradation, but has a bizarre fixation on “black bodies” and believes one’s sexuality is a legitimate marker of “identity.” Their “truths” are so self-evident that a Swedish professor may be fired for saying that men and women are biologically different. In the “marketplace of ideas,” there are more gays and transgendereds at Yale and Harvard, for example, than there are conservatives. Curious for an ideology whose adherents claim to not only value diversity, but believe that it is a sufficient reason to detonate Europeans’ ancestral homelands for its cuisine, the growth of GDP, and record-setting rapes and acid attacks. In another paradox, many Leftists signal their “easy virtue,” while simultaneously engaging in the intrusive policing of others’ sexuality and dating preferences. Their “free love” is reflected in the fact that Millennials have less sex than their parents but somehow have more STDs. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder any longer, it is in the eye of the judicial branch and whatever the media-entertainment complex decide it is.
The idea of ownership in Ladson-Billings’s “property functions of whiteness” is highly “problematic,” to use the Left’s parlance, for it evokes images of slavery, the kind that was only practiced by whites and for which we must surrender everything and just die already! Nevertheless, though we may “own” our skin, the other “rights” enumerated no longer apply to whites. As far as reputation and status, we are being vilified for every possible inequity under the sun, even if we had nothing to do with it. Rights to use and enjoyment? That would be for “people of color” to have unfettered access to our nations, our cultures, our ideas, and our money. The absolute right to exclude? We can’t even have our own neighborhoods, let alone countries. It is clear, from a critical race theory perspective and as affirmed by Cheryl Harris above that property rights are not respected, let alone absolute, especially when there is a “reallocation of power” to be had.
 “Whiteness As Property”. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1st ed. New York: New York Press, 1995. 290.