Ebony and Ivory (and “Fellow Whites”): Critical Race Theory and a Terminally-Ill Liberalism
“Because so much disinformation is geared toward splitting people apart, it’s often racialized.”- Jewish Former Snopes Managing Editor Brooke Binkowski
“Well how else could we keep the white genocide going?”-Also Jewish Former Snopes Managing Editor Brooke Binkowski
One of the central features of modern academic life—and public “discourse” as determined by the commissars of the commentariat—is the seemingly-omnipresent anti-intellectual school of “thought” called “critical race theory.” Similar to its cousins under the ideological umbrella of critical theory—expounded upon most brilliantly in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, but about which I’ve written on elsewhere as well—critical race theory un-critically internalizes Cultural Marxist dictums and spews them out semi-masticated into the minds of impressionable young people with the explicit aim of producing social agitators. Once in the world at large, these disgruntled and maladjusted products of Cult-Marx re-education lash out at a world that, unlike race, is an artificial construct; their false prejudices are confirmed through what they see and hear in the echo chamber of media and entertainment, little but an extension of the uniform Leftism they’ve spent two decades marinating in. As with all forms of critical theory, critical race theory doesn’t even pass muster as a pseudo-discipline. It is a perversion of academic inquiry, one that relies on extreme subjectivity and is actually hostile toward empiricism. One central “truth” of critical race theory—as in feminist theory, post-colonial theory, queer theory, and the like—is that a narrative does not even need to be factually accurate or reflect reality to be “true.” As Harvard University explains, critical race theory:
Combines progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed. Scholars, most of whom are themselves persons of color, challenge the ways that race and racial power are constructed by law and culture. One key focus of critical race theorists is a regime of white supremacy and privilege maintained despite the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Agreeing with critical theorists and many feminists that law itself is not a neutral tool but instead part of the problem, critical race scholars identify inadequacies of conventional civil rights litigation. Critical race theorists nonetheless fault critical legal scholars as failing to develop much to attract people of color and for neglecting the transformative potential of rights discourse in social movements, regardless of the internal incoherence or indeterminacy of rights themselves…They converge around the belief that racism is endemic, not aberrational, in American society; that liberal legal ideals of neutrality and color-blindness have replicated rather than undone racism; that analysis should be informed by personal experience and contextual, historical studies; and that pragmatic and eclectic strategies should be pursued in the struggle for racial and social justice…Opponents of critical race theory argue that the work substitutes emotions for reason and self-dealing for fairness. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry argue that critical race theorists manifest anti-Semitism and anti-Asian tendencies in their attacks on conventional notions of merit-based selection by schools and employers.
This criticism of non-merit-based admissions is valid regarding Asian acceptance rates but not at all accurate regarding “anti-Semitism”; as one example, Gentiles’ representation at Harvard has dropped approximately 70% over the last three decades-plus, whereas Jewish representation at Harvard increased 35% from 2000-2011. As Ron Unz explicates:
Most of the other Ivy League schools appear to follow a fairly similar trajectory. Between 1980 and 2011, the official figures indicate that non-Jewish white enrollment dropped by 63 percent at Yale, 44 percent at Princeton, 52 percent at Dartmouth, 69 percent at Columbia, 62 percent at Cornell, 66 percent at Penn, and 64 percent at Brown…I have only located yearly Jewish enrollment percentages back to 2006, but during the six years since then (note: the article is from 2012), there is a uniform pattern of often substantial rises: increases of roughly 25 percent at Yale, 45 percent at Columbia, 10 percent at Cornell, 15 percent at Brown, and no declines anywhere…Yale replaced its admissions staff in 1965 and the following year Jewish numbers nearly doubled.
This is to be expected given the fact that, for all intents and purposes, critical theory is the anti-Western and anti-white province of Jews who wield tremendous institutional power ill-gotten via all manner of manipulations and machinations, despite David Schraub’s preposterous claim that Jews in America have “marked political limitations” (despite being responsible for 50% of the Democratic Party’s campaign contributions and 25% of the Republican Party’s). Nevertheless, from Edwin L. Rubin’s article “Jews, Truth, and Critical Race Theory”:
Critical race theory, radical feminism, and gay legal studies constitute a major force in modern legal scholarship; Farber and Sherry’s critique represents a serious challenge to these approaches. The charge of anti-Semitism also raises an interesting issue about the role of Jews in legal academics. This field, like the motion picture industry, is one in which Jews have played a leading role, but have tended to de-emphasize their particular identity. In focusing on anti-Semitism, Farber and Sherry invite consideration of the specific role of Jews, as Jews, in legal scholarship.
How interesting that despite the furious protestations by Jews that they do not hold institutional power that here we find a self-admission of not only of said power, but of how such power is covertly wielded. In this same article, the circuitous and (what should be) self-negating “logic” of critical theory and Jews’ leading role in its propagation also reveals itself:
According to Farber and Sherry, critical race theory is anti-Semitic because it rejects the validity of merit. Critical race theorists argue that merit is merely a mechanism for justifying existing social inequalities, or more specifically, for ensuring that people of color are disproportionately excluded from positions of prestige and power. But if this is true, Farber and Sherry ask, what about people who are disproportionately included, such as Jews? The most natural explanation is that Jews are succeeding on their merits. “Through there are several benign (that is, not racist or anti-Semitic) readings of this explanation,” Farber and Sherry write, “none are available to the radical multiculturalists, because the radicals deny the possibility of objective merit.”
Therefore Jews’ overrepresentation is due exclusively to their merit, but “structural inequalities” disproportionately benefit whites, sans a consideration of merit. Got it? Farber and Sherry are engaged in the double-think of inoculating Jews against accusations of “privilege” as defined by the very framework of critical theory Jews themselves designed; in so doing, they implicate “whiteness,” which Jews appropriate when beneficial and especially in order to undermine it, but may discard whenever it becomes expedient. Thus, they may disproportionately benefit from our systems both through merit where relevant, and through manipulation as “oppressed persons” where relevant.
In essence, critical race theory is a rubric that may only be applied to whites and not Jews—unless Jews are using critical race theory in order to implicate “whiteness” and gain some benefit from its derogation. Their absolute ability explains their massive overrepresentation in positions of influence and authority, and earnings, but “systemic oppression” explains that of whites with IQs dramatically higher than that of the world’s non-Ashkenazi and Northeast Asian populations. Further, before one even considers IQ, claiming that whites enjoy systemic advantages in their own nations is as preposterous as stating that Saudi Arabians and Kenyans and Chinese enjoy systemic privileges in theirs—and a less egregious claim than that of Jews in Israel. Further, Jews and Chinese especially enjoy substantial privileges by “gaming” the system in order to operate freely as “oppressed persons” (see: Chinese classification as “black” in South Africa, for example, or in many areas outside academia, for the Chinese and other Northeast Asians to align themselves with the perpetual-victim grievance-mongers despite average wages $13,000 greater than those of white Americans).
Jews in general have very high verbal IQs, which explains in part why they are able to “get away with” such double-dealing, and their extreme in-group loyalties make it so very few ever break ranks. They also, despite their protestations, have an inordinate amount of institutional power, which is used to crush dissent if the Jedi mind tricks or other shell games fail, and make no mistake, critical race theory is nothing if not an elaborate rouse. Despite the verbiage, though, critical theory itself is, as I stated at the beginning of this article, anti-intellectual. This intellectual abortion rejects objective truth and the logos, the central feature of Western civilization, in favor of “lived experience” and extreme subjectivity. As one example:
Charles Lawrence urges professors in law schools to reject the false neutrality of the conventional scholar and teacher, and instead to embrace storytelling and the personal voice with efforts to transpose “feelings and experience into language as a political discipline.”
As another example, Catherine MacKinnon in “Feminism Unmodified” disavows “standard scientific norms” as the radical feminist critique of "the objective standpoint as male" is necessarily "a critique of science as a specifically male approach to knowledge…Objectivity is the epistemological stance of which objectification is the social process .... That is, to look at the world objectively is to objectify it." There is a reason that thinking critically about critical theory is stigmatized as “colonialist” or “patriarchal,” and a logical appraisal of its framework treated as “problematic,” a way to reinforce the hetero-normative white patriarchy. Its subjectivity makes it appealing for those who for biological reasons have found themselves “disadvantaged” in a society that was not built for them and was once predicated on merit. In this instance, critical theory is correct: the “white supremacy” of American society is that American society, as it has been built and as it reached its zenith was nearly-exclusively white. This is only “problematic” through the ahistorical and relativistic lens of critical theory. Thus, blacks and browns with lower average IQs may foment grievances based on the “structural inequities” based on our standards, and may also not “see themselves reflected” in the Historic American Nation. The “BQ” (black question) is a bit more complex, as many have deep historical and genealogical ties to the nation, but their relationship with and relation to the United States is far different from that of the progeny of the Founders.
One of the greatest paradoxes of critical race theory, returning to Harvard’s entry, is its basis on a category that it claims does not really exist:
Rejecting the idea of race as a natural category, critical race scholars join feminists and queer theorists in the project of unearthing the social, cultural, and legal constructions of identities.
Here is one such example of the “manufactured epistemology,” as Peter Boghossian calls it, of critical theory, reflected in the extreme narcissism and ethno-religious nepotism of “Jewishness,” from Griffin Jaye Epstein:
Perhaps I am longing to belong as an ally. As much of this project is about Jewish identity, race and madness, in writing it I might accidentally clear a discursive space for Jewish identity in critical race theory, or for queerness in mad/disability studies. That would be a fortunate side effect of what is ultimately a profoundly narcissistic project – narcissistic in the Derridean sense, wherein a text can engage in a self-analysis that is “open to the experience of the other as other.” (Derrida 1995, 199)
Epstein’s project remains grounded in critical theory as a means not of the de-construction of identity as such, but as exploring “genealogical guilt”—but with a twist: instead of “white guilt,” we have “the whitening of Ashkenazi North American Jewish identity,” where Epstein proposes “accountability through genealogy,” and wonders, “Can we be accountable to privilege? Can we find a space for coherent anti-racist secular Ashkenazi Jewish identity in North America, where Jews have been deeply implicated in structural violence? Can we be agents of both complicity and change?” For Andrew Joyce:
Historically (even biblically) Jews always translated a sense of failing into a need to become even more Jewish. By contrast, critical theory especially impressed on Christians/Whites the need to be less Christian/White.
Even in Epstein’s admissions of guilt, said guilt as it pertains to his “Jewishness” remains wholly tethered to its “whitening,” thus implicating whites and “whiteness” for what Jews have perpetrated and thus absolving them of any guilt. A return to and strengthening of one’s “Jewishness” means discarding the ills of “whiteness” in an act of ethno-religious purity. Even in sin they are blameless, evidently.