On Pages 56 and 57 of his new book, America’s Cultural Revolution, Chris Rufo points out how Progressivism had captured the colleges, and then the legacy media and the government. On Page 62 he points out that now DEI has taken over most large corporations.
On Pages 163 and 164 Rufo writes of the state Board of Education: “ . . . approved of a sweeping Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, with the goal of transforming education in ten thousand public schools, serving a total of 6 million students. The curriculum, which is based in large part of Freire’s framework of social consciousness, decolonization, and revolt, begins with the assumption that students must learn how to ‘challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/ colonial beliefs’ and critique ‘white supremacy, racism and other forms of power and oppression.’ Teachers are then encouraged to drive their pupils to participate ‘in social movements that struggle for social justice’ and ‘build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic racist society.’”
My response: this public educational policy naked Marxism and indoctrination of 6 million children to be social justice agents, and haters of whites, individualism, and capitalism.
The function of the school is to educate children and teach them moral values; its function is not to make them uneducated, depressed, angry, ignorant, mob followers to Communist ideology. Instead of preparing children to reason, think, self-actualize and make their own decisions of their own free will—especially after the age of 18--so that they can be the anarchist-individuator supercitizens, the new masses, upper middle class, of tomorrow, in which one is an individual a Randian first-hander. Merit, personal initiative, and color-blindness are the preconditions for each student being moral, loyal to American and productive and happy as an adult. That is the goal of education.
With their obsession with whites, Christians, heterosexuals, males, constitutional republicanism and capitalism, what the idealists serving on that California Board of Education are preparing children for is a neo-feudal Marxist, totalitarian state, under which the people like whites belonging to hated, defamed identity groups as traditional haters and bigots, will be reverse-racist persecuted (that is all that anti-racism is), and America will have declined into a purely racist society, systemic and virulent as never seen before in human histories. White are the new Jews from the 1930s, and the Left has not yet disarmed us, and overthrown the Presidency so their new dictator and ruling elite can build concentration camps and crematoriums to eliminate whites and all other disfavored groups, The values proclaimed by these moral monsters rises up straight from hell, and they and the people regard these liars and soon-to-be-killers as humanitarians, the new Ellsworth Tooheys of the modern age.
On Page 164 Rufo refers to R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original cochair of the Ethnic
Studies Model Curriculum that the ultimate goal of ethnic education “ . . . is to ‘decolonize’ American society and establish a new regime of ‘countergenocide’ and ‘counterhegemony,’ . . .”
Note that he talks of building an anti-white, anti-Christian hegemony to establish a new regime of countergenocide against whites and Christians. This hater is wicked and his plan is pure Satanism in the world, and why are the people of California allowing their tax dollars to be abused in this way by these radicals and moral nihilists?
On Page 172, Rufo describes how monsters like Stalin regarded themselves as engineers of the human soul, wanting to reshape human nature according to the dictates of left-wing ideology.
Erich Hoffer described the knack of totalitarian strongmen to remake the souls of its subjects as soul-rape, and that is an apt, if condemnatory definition of soul engineering.
Basic human nature is fixed, and it is up to each individual, of his own free will, to work with his flawed but promising personal nature, so as to discipline it so that she can live a life of fulfilling, satisfying life as a maverizer in the service of the benevolent deity of her choice.
Rufo points out that classical Marxists like Paulo Freire could not introduce class warfare as the identities of oppressors versus the oppressed here in American, and make it stick. Identity politics here ideologues here replaced the rich as oppressors whites as inherently oppressive, and replaced the poor as the oppressed with blacks as inherently oppressed as the oppressed.
On Page 178 the articulate Rufo reveals the aim of the ideologues of public education today: “But underneath the rhetoric, the critical pedagogists are playing a serious game. They want to dismantle the pillars of Western society—rationalism, individualism, capitalism, natural rights, the rule of law—and usher in a post-liberal and post-whiteness, political order. This process begins with the engineering of the human soul: the educator can reshape the psychology of the child, then lead him down the path of political activism.”
On Page 192 Rufo describes a program for white students to help them become anti-racist and to feel guilty about their natural white racism and advantage: “The ‘identity development’ program also follows the textbook cult indoctrination process: persuade initiates of their fundamental guilt, present a remedy through participation in the group, manipulate the emotions to achieve compliance, identify an amorphous scapegoat, demand totally loyalty to the new orthodoxy, proselytize through personal circles, isolate from old friends and family, and keep the ultimate solution always out of reach.”
My response: it looks like a shrewd effective program for converting school children into zombie activists, true believers helping spread the revolution, they agenda of the parents that direct them.
On Page 196, Rufo writes this: “As the internal documents from the Oregon Department of Education make clear, the point of ethnic studies is not academic achievement, but ‘social change’—education is the means, politics is the end.”
My response: we are a people under very serious attack.
On the bottom of Page 197, Rufo writes this: “The anti-racism program ‘was the battering ram,’ but the ultimate goal, according to the teacher, is the ‘dismantling of Western culture’ and the ushering in of a new left-wing utopia.
My response: this sounds like Mark Levin’s Ameritopia to me.
On Page 199, Rufo relays how Portland-area teachers were warned that a teacher in an oppressive system is either an oppressor or a revolutionary.
On Page 207, Rufo describes how the student followers of Derrick Bell who cobbled together his racial predicates with a substantive demand to deconstruct the constitutional order: “These students, calling themselves ‘critical race theorists,’ would throw acid on the founding principles of the country, making arguments for dismantling color-blind equality, curtailing free speech, supplanting individual rights with group-identity-based entitlements, and suspending private property rights in favor of racial distribution.” . . . They wanted to create a theoretical basis for undermining the American regime as a whole by attaching their ideas to real administrative power in government, education, and law . . . Now, a decade after Bell’s death, their blitz through the institutions has succeeded. Critical race theory, whether by name or through the euphemism of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion.’ has become the default ideology of the universities, the federal government, the public schools, and the corporate human resources department . . .
My response: Neo-Marxism is near to being the cultural, social and political law of the land here in American.
Bell seemed to feel inferior to the other legal scholars at Harvard because he was appointed but not a legal scholar like they were. Who knows? But it seems to me that he was filled with hatred of whites, a reverse racism that was pathological and destructive. Here is what Thomas Sowell said about Bell on Page 231: “The economist Thomas Sowell described Bell’s philosophical descent in blunt terms: ‘He turned his back on the ideal of a colorblind society and he’s really for a getting-even society, a revenge society,’ Sowell said. ‘It’s particularly ironic in the case of Bell because, at one point in his career, he fought against racism. And now he seems to have metamorphosed into someone who thinks that racism should not be eliminated, but simply put under new management.”
My response: Bell’s critical race theory regards both blacks and whites simply as avatars of their racial groups, not as unique individuals in themselves. He was a typical Leftist hater and liar: they hate whites so bad, are so obsessed with whites, and believe that whites have total power over their ruined lives that curse from which they can never escape, so they must attack, attack, attack whites until their overthrow them and wipe them off the face of the earth. Bell, Leftists and others blacks that agree with Bell are not only naturally racist or bigoted against others outside of our or group identities, their social construct (CRT) is sick, false and terribly cruel, for all humans under this awful fiction are relegated to having no destiny, no outcome possible outside of their biological or chosen group identities, when, in fact, the Good Spirits are individualists and individuators that judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Bell could have self-realized beyond a pursuit for cheap collective power gain, and adopted an individualistic philosophy, as a human man and a black man, that could have developed his black, racial worldview in such a creative, original way, that Bell could inform and show the world what an educated, brilliant black man like himself could achieve, if he put his mind to it, and did it. There is no real future for CRT/DEI woke lies to be applied in America legally, educationally and culturally.
On Page 233 and 234, Rufo writes this: “The critical race theorists did not pretend to be dispassionate scholars in pursuit of knowledge. They saw themselves as political activists in pursuit of change.”
My response: these race-hustling, race-baiting ideologues were out to overthrow the West and America, bringing Leninist revolution to America, under the guise of reformative improvements in race relations.
On Page 235, Rufo writes this: “The first key element of critical race theory is the discipline’s reconceptualization of the truth. By the mid-1990s, the young law professors who were affiliated with the movement had absorbed a thoroughly postmodern epistemology, arguing that Western rationality is a mask for power and domination. They followed the fashionable line of French post-structuralist philosophers Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault, arguing that ‘truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group’ and casting skepticism on the traditional notions of knowledge, justice, and freedom. They began their political project with the ambition of exploding the epistemology of natural rights, which would make way for a radical reinterpretation. They wanted to replace the old system of colorblindness, equality, and individual rights with a new system one might call a theory of ‘racial reasoning.’”
My response: by denying there are any metanarratives, postmodernist cast aside as no longer axiomatic and epistemological assumptions that knowledge and truth can be known. If there is no objective morality, legal theory, theory of natural rights or the sovereignty of the individual upon which to ground the Western legal system, the CRT crowd can insert new narratives supportive of their bogus identitarian and socialist agenda.
On Page 237 Rufo writes that the second key element of critical race theory is the concept of intersectionality, describing the old Marxist binary of oppressor and oppressed, instead as “a finely graded, multivariate hierarchy of oppression.”
On Page 239 Rufo introduces the third key element of critical race theory is “ . . . critical race praxis, or the application of the theory to practical politics.” The activists seeks to understand the social landscape but then he must get active and change it.
My response: They need a new cultural vision to replace the American view. Kimberlie Crenshaw wants this new vision to become the new postmodernist Marxist worldview that dominates the American landscape. She learned from Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci that this alternative vision must become the new hegemony. Rufo quotes her on 239: “ In examining domination as a combination of physical coercion and ideological control, Gramsci articulated the concept of hegemony, the means by which a system of attitudes and beliefs, permeating both popular consciousness and the ideology of the elites, reinforces existing social arrangements, and convinces the dominated classes that the existing order is inevitable.”
On Page 247 Rufo writes of Professor Henry Gates strong critique of CRT: “The critical race theorists have substituted verbalism for meaning and symbolism for substance. If they were to attain power, Gates warned, they would sacrifice liberty for a phantom notion of equality, which, in the end, might end up destroying both. Contrary to the activists of the civil rights movement, the aim of the critical race theorists was ‘not to resist power, but to enlist power.’ The result would be a system of manipulation that uses guilt, shame, and intricate linguistic and psychological traps to maintain social control.”
My response: In other words, under their slick presentation as social justice warriors, they just wanted raw power to reshape America into Ameritopia.
On Pages 249 and 250, Rufo characterizes critical race theory, that it was never designed to reveal truth, but was designed to achieve power: “In a way, critical race theory has become the uberdiscipline of the critical race theories. It has harnessed the essential frame of Marcuse’s critical theory, absorbed the strategy of Angela Davis’s critical praxis, merged with the application of Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, and combined them all into formidable, if largely invisible, political movement, which has moved from the margins to the very center of American power. Their theory—that the Constitution upholds the regime of white supremacy and must be superseded by a regime of ‘racial equity’—has become dominant across the entire range of elite institutions.”
On Page 258 Rufo describes how the victors are doing today: “After fifty years, the long march has been completed. The radical Left has finally won its Gramscian ‘war of position’ and attained ideological power within the American state.”
Here on Page 259 Rufo writes is what the CRT socialist dictatorship proponents suggest revamping the Constitution: “In place of the existing interpretation, the critical race theorists proposed a three-part overhaul of the American system of governance: abandoning the ‘colorblind’ notion of equality, redistributing wealth along racial lines, and restricting speech that is deemed ‘hateful.’”
On Page 264, Rufo writes: “Taken together, the three pillars of the critical race theorists’ ideal system of governance—the replacement of individual rights with group rights, the race-based redistribution of wealth, the suppression of speech based on racial and political calculus—constitute a change in political regime.”
My response: If the counterrevolution in culture and politics that Rufo has so nicely analyzed and traced, is not conducted well and soon, then America will decline into a socialist dictatorship like Cuba.
On Page 279 Rufo writes this: “The great weakness of the cultural revolution is that it negates the metaphysics, morality, and stability of the common citizen. As it undermines the institutions of family, faith, and community, it creates a void in the human heart that cannot be filled by its one-dimensional ideology.”
My response: We require values to live by, and our traditional Western and American values and culture will provide the people with a metanarrative that satisfies and inspires them.
On Page 280, Rufo writes: “In historical terms, the counter-revolution can be understood as restoration of the revolution of 1776 over and against the revolution of 1968. Its ambition is not to assume the control over the centralized bureaucratic apparatus, but to smash it. It is a revolution against: against utopia, against collectivism, against racial reductionism, against the infinite plasticity of human nature. But it is also a revolution for: for the return of natural right, the Constitution, and the dignity of the individual.
My response: Rufo is very eloquent, stating what we need to do and why.
On Pages 280 and 281 Rufo lays out the counter-revolutionary endpoint: “If the endpoint of the critical theories is nihilism, the counter-revolution must begin with hope. The principles of the society under counter-revolution are not oriented towards sweeping reversals and absolutes, but toward the protection of the humble values and institutions of the common man: family, faith, work, community, country. The intellectuals and activists of the counter-revolution must arm the population with a competing set of values, spoken in language that exposes and surpasses the euphemisms of the left-wing ideological regime: excellence over diversity, equality over equity, dignity over inclusion, order over chaos.
On Page 281 Rufo does a fine job pointing out that we need to restore faith and support for the political institutions provided under our constitution by limiting the administrative state: “The ultimate objective of this campaign must be the restoration of political rule. The deepest conflict in United States is not along the axis of class, race, or identity, but along the managerial axis that pits elite institutions against the common citizen. The revolution, which seeks to connect ideology to bureaucratic power and to manipulate behavior through the guise of expertise, is ultimately anti-democratic.
My response: I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment