It’s virtually certain that a Biden administration will not maintain President Trump’s executive order that was issued in response to using Critical Race Theory in employee training circumstances in federal agencies and contractors (“Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”). I think that, if anything, can be assumed with very high confidence. There are a number of important points to make about this issue, then. I want to list four important points about the order, the ideas it contains, and the environment we find ourselves in around it.
These are:
- it offers no protection at the state level (or local), which is needed;
- it is incomplete in one important regard—neglecting other factors of identity besides race and sex;
- we’ve been systematically misled, if not lied to, about it ever since it was issued; and
- those who wish to overturn it—including university presidents, provosts, and departments, prominent journalists, and many Democratic politicians, plausibly to include Joe Biden and his administration relatively soon—must be held to account for this desire in the terms of the executive order itself, not in made-up terms that don’t apply to the situation.
Awareness and action are required on all four of these domains.
State-Level Protection
Whether or not the Biden administration maintains this executive order or not, its protections apply only to federal-level agencies and contractors and therefore do not apply to state agencies and contractors. Indeed, I’ve been asked about this repeatedly since the order was issued in September 2020: “I work for the state of [say, California]; does President Trump’s order apply for my job?” The answer is usually “no.” This is an obvious problem.
Regardless of what is happening at the federal level, our state (and city) employees need the same protection that our federal employees gained from the order, which protects from being forced into workplace training sessions that teach a number of “divisive concepts” (discussed below) and the attendant abuses we’re all becoming familiar with as these wrongheaded, unevidenced trainings have become standard throughout our society. Obviously, this protection is needed even more if Biden’s administration overturns the order at the federal level, both to offer it somewhere and to create the kind of pressure that can make the federal government think a bit harder about its top-down manipulations of employees whose salaries are paid for by taxpayers who may have different positions of conscience on the relevant issues.
Our governors (obviously, mostly Republican) and state legislatures can make up for this pair of problems quite directly—as can our mayors and city councils. Governors can issue their own executive orders mirroring the original federal order, applicable at the state level, and state legislatures can do one better and make the contents of the orders into state law, thus protecting their citizens in an important way. I call upon them directly to do so as soon as possible. If they do, I also recommend they read at least the next section (below) to patch a hole in the existing federal order.
Filling a Hole
The relevant federal executive order is, as will be made clear below, something of a masterpiece in the way it is written, but it presents a significant hole (that I already know is proving troublesome for people who have to deal with the encroaching Critical Theory ideology): race and sex aren’t the only dimensions of “identity” that the Critical Theory activists make use of. That list is quite exhaustive (and exhausting—the famous queer Theorist Judith Butler even referred to it as “that exasperated et cetera” that has to be added to ever list of identity factors within the intersecting ideologies of Critical Social Justice Theory), but at the very least, a properly patched order must include gender, sexuality, and disability status in addition to race and sex.
My recommendation would be that any similar orders issued should tackle the issue of “factors of identity” in a way that covers a wider gamut of possible factors than just race and sex—at the least explicitly naming all of gender, sexuality, and disability status—as off-limits for discrimination, stereotyping, scapegoating, or otherwise applying what the executive order refers to as “divisive concepts” in the context of a mandated workplace training or educational setting that treats the ideas as uncontested facts (rather than the conclusions of a particular theoretical approach).
We’ve Been Lied To
Almost every critical article or statement that has been made about the federal executive order has been misleading in at least one significant way, and the record needs to be set straight. We hear nearly ubiquitously that President Trump issued an executive order that bans “diversity training” or “racial sensitivity training.” We hear from universities that President Trump banned the teaching of Critical Race Theory, which allegedly violates academic freedom, and significant challenges against the order have been issued by a large number of universities and university departments consistent with this claim against it—many openly calling to defy the order (possibly legally, as will be clarified momentarily, making this a publicity stunt).
These statements aren’t just misleading; they’re flatly wrong—they’re lies, at least from anyone who actually bothered to read Section 10 of the order. Since that very pertinent section seems to have been missed, I’ll quote the two relevant subsections here:
Sec. 10. General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement. (emphasis added)
It is impossible to have read this section of the order and reached the conclusion that it prohibits or bans “diversity training” or “racial sensitivity training.” It only prohibits that subset of those trainings that rely upon the “divisive concepts” outlined in Section 2(a) of the order (discussed further below). As it was recently reported that (Democratic leaders claim that) the executive order put a stop to nearly all federal-level diversity training, the conclusion is that nearly all diversity training is not genuinely “diversity training” but instead something based in the divisive concepts that—I hope we can all agree once we actually look at them (below)—should be banned. We should be asking journalists and (mostly Democratic) politicians who misreported this why they did so, and also (as we’ll discuss in the next section) why they would want these “divisive concepts” being part of responsible diversity and inclusion training in the first place.
We can also see that the “academics” who have claimed that the order violates their academic freedom are misinformed, at best, or lying, as Section 10(b) of the order explicitly says that’s not the case. It is still perfectly permissible under this order to teach the various Critical Theories, including Critical Race Theory, as academic theories, but that must be done “in an objective manner and without endorsement,” i.e., not as though they are statements of uncontested facts or undisputed “truths” about the world. It’s frankly shocking that our academics would be this confused about such a plain and clear statement that maintains their academic freedom, unless it’s that they just failed to do their basic due diligence in reading the order that they’re so vigorously condemning in terms that don’t even apply.
The relevant executive order—and spin-off orders issued or passed into law at the state or local level—does not limit academic freedom or the ability to conduct diversity and inclusion activities (including trainings). It has been a gross abnegation of duty on the part of our journalists, academics, and (mostly Democratic) politicians to have said, plainly and repeatedly, otherwise. They should be asked why, and they should be pressed further on why they would want to challenge the order, or ones like it, in the first place.
Proponents Must Want Division
Again, as I have read the executive order several times, I’m perplexed as to why any American or reasonable and decent human being living in the twenty-first century would want it overturned. Since many do, since presumably a Biden administration will as well, and since I try not to assume people are as evil as they often sound in ignorance, I have to assume the executive order has not been widely or properly read. Nevertheless, as we can see from Section 10 above, the order only prohibits applying the “divisive concepts” listed in Section 2(a) and then only in particular ways. It’s therefore important for us to look at these concepts directly from the order and evaluate them.
Before listing them, with commentary, I want to stress why we need to be familiar with what the executive order says. It’s very simple. Anyone who wants to overturn this executive order or resist creating copycat orders at the state (or city) level must want to leave room to engage in at least one of the behaviors it prohibits. The questions are “which ones?” and “why?”
Here is the list of prohibited “divisive concepts” given in Section 2(a) of the executive order, with my own commentary added in italics in square brackets added to most of them:
(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex [outright bigotry or supremacy—note that this also prohibits white supremacy, patriarchy, (homophobia, ableism, exasperated etc.)];
(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist [i.e., “systemic” bigotry/oppression];
(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously [even by “complicity,” like “white complicity” or “brown complicity”];
(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex [this is a repudiation of identity-blindness, e.g., colorblindness, and seeks to make identity, like race, relevant and central to all interactions and phenomena];
(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex [direct rejection of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” perspective];
(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex [a kind of identity-based “sins of the father” and guilt by association];
(8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex [believe it or not, this kind of thing is advocated under Critical Theories of identity (Critical Social Justice) under models like “the pedagogy of discomfort”)]; or
(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race [this ideology rejects meritocracy].
The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.
Anyone who is calling for this order to be overturned or who is arguing against passing it into law, both on the federal level or, hopefully, on the state levels, must be held to account on this point: they must want to leave room to engage in at least one of the eleven things listed above. We have to ask them which ones and why.
If you find someone who is against this order or similar, ask them what it is they disagree with. Have then be specific—which “divisive tenets” do you want to engage in and why? Ask them:
Do you want to claim that certain identities are inherently superior to others? If so, why?
Do you want to claim that the United States is fundamentally bigoted? If so, why?
Do you want to claim that certain individuals—because of who they happen to be in terms of identity factors like race, sex, (gender, sexuality, disability, exasperated etc.)—are intrinsically bigoted or complicit in bigotry? If so, why?
Do you think that people should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of factors of identity? If so, why?
Do you think that people should have to treat people according to their identities instead of as equals? If so, why?
Do you believe that people’s moral character is in some way determined by who they happen to be? If so, why?
Do you believe that people should be held morally responsible for things that were done by other people who happen to have the same identity factors that they do? If so, why?
Do you think that people should be made to feel uncomfortable (or in anguish!) over factors of their identity? If so, why?
Do you want to say that merit was not a significant, if not the, determining factor in how people came to occupy the professional positions they occupy? If so, why?
Do you wish to engage in identity-based stereotyping of some other kind? If so, why?
Do you wish to engage in identity-based scapegoating of some other kind? If so, why?
These questions must be asked clearly and repeatedly of anyone who condemns this executive order, calls to have it overturned, or resists attempts to bring it fully legislatively into law at the federal or, via copycat orders and legislation, state (or local) levels. They must want to leave room for at least one of these, and the should be able to articulate which ones and why, and they must be held to account on the point every single time it comes up. Should they only want to engage in a small number of these and repudiate the others—as they definitely should—they should be pressured to support the passage of similar or amended orders or legislation that offer the maximal amount of protection against the mainlining of these “divisive concepts” in our taxpayer-funded workplaces.
Again, this isn’t a mere think-piece. It is a call to action. While it would be ideal that this order is maintained at the federal level until it can be passed into law by Congress (which would merely strengthen the Civil Rights Acts), these protections are needed just as explicitly at the state (and even local) level as well. Our state governors, state legislatures, and even mayors and city councils should take action on this immediately and should be vigorously held to account, as noted above, if they resist or refuse. When they do, they should patch the hole in the federal order by including other factors of identity, at the least including gender, sexuality, and disability status. Meanwhile, we should be holding our professionals—academics, journalists, and politicians (especially Democratic ones)—to account for why we have been and are still being misled about this order. We deserve answers about why they have got this issue so wrong (laziness or malfeasance?), and we have to start asking for them as often as necessary.
47 comments
What is so perplexing is that after nearly a century of debunking -race- as any sort of signifier it has become holy writ once again. And no one is telling them this to their face. Race is bunk. Might as well say: as a person of twin earlobes—
Since Biden’s first day in office caused the first link in the article to return an error, here’s the archived version.
Cal,
Thank you for the pointing to TIV, with which research I was unfamiliar. For anyone else wanting to look into it: Link
The U.S. military service academies are initiating workgroups to integrate anti-racist concepts in recruiting/acceptance, cadet/midshipman personnel management, as well as leadership ethics. The academies are arguably the closest to ideal the nation has to merit-based higher education institutions, and they each serve as the moral compass and ethical center for their respective military service branch. This article is a good primer for developing arguments against incorporation of CRT in military policy, which at all costs must remain apolitical.
Link
Link
Here I went, looking for nuance and instead found the same thing I’m finding everywhere. Once you take a side, all nuance goes out the window and your start to mold everything into a coherent worldview that is just as tribal as the one you’re rallying against.
Every group I join, I leave because they all turn into echo chambers and circle jerks. If you are a skeptic, you have to suddenly lean towards trusting institutions by default. If you support trans people you have to demonize gender critical feminists. If you embrace gender critical feminism, then suddenly you find the right as a friend and have to become more conservative.
I’m so sick of it. I had some glimmer of hope discovering your Youtube, though the red flag should have been over 20 videos on detransitioning. You found your niche, and anyone in that community will no doubt find you, and then probably end up becoming a flag waving patriot who doesn’t like people to criticize a nation that was built on slavery and genocide. If that sounds hyperbolic, well so is your criticism and misrepresentation of the “woke” boogeyman.
Where is the real nuance out there? Our world needs it. We need more critical thinking. But you’re just as tribal. Your interest in detransitioning people is shallow. It only exists because you want to use it as a tool to criticize other ideologies that challenge you as a white male who loves his country because his country has always been good to him and because its ideals uplift him and make him feel special. Lucky you. For the rest of us, not so much.
We are going to continue to become further radicalized. Each in our own corner. Each reinforcing our own points of view until we become extinct. Extinction can’t come soon enough. We’re done. We’re awful. We deserve death.
Is BLM based on a conspiracy theory? Will meanie Biden overturn an executive order by the biggest idiot whose ever occupied the oval office? Watch as I lend my extensive vocabulary to make stupid ideas seem more credible. Tripping on my dick the whole way through. Unable to see things from any other point of view other than my own. Hooray!
@FD
This is very far from an echo chamber… LOL this FD id has to be some kind of bot! But no not a bot… I’d recommend actually learning the ideals of the country first then you might be able to relate a little better than you have so far.
Mr/Mrs/Ms/Mx Done-
I’m not sure how you conclude: “If you are a skeptic, you have to suddenly lean towards trusting institutions by default. If you support trans people you have to demonize gender critical feminists. If you embrace gender critical feminism, then suddenly you find the right as a friend and have to become more conservative”. That seems to be a dichotomous word view.
It is possible to like people and disagree with their ideas. Ad hominem means attack the person, not the idea. To call someone an “idiot” is an ad hominem, not exactly a valid argument.
On another note, I, for example, make it a point to read articles with which I probably won’t agree. That helps me to understand the opposing argument better. Jacobinmag.com is one such resource.
Hello Ophnell,
I see you still have a penchant for strawman constructions, willful mischaracterizations, and the middle of the road fallacy.
Learning how to construct a proper argument will make your contributions seem less tantrum-like.
And, there is lies the problem we have in America today. “Unable to see things from any other point of view other than my own.” How do you interpret the Executive Order? I never saw your interpretation in your message. Only, criticism and sarcasm. What part of the EO do you not agree with? And, explain why you agree or disagree? Only, then can there be a dialogue over an important issue.
Bad idea according to Cynical Theories, page 262, final paragraph! You were right when you and Helen wrote that!
“Others have argued that Social Justice courses should not be publicly funded. They make a not-unreasonable argument that the taxpayer should not be expected to pay for scholarship that is neither rigorous nor ethical. We disagree with this too. Governments should not be given control over what universities teach-such a move would amount to establishing a kind of Ministry of Truth….”
Jim-
A thought here: I think one must first abolish federally subsidized student loans and the Dept. of Ed in order to accomplish your goal. It seems unlikely that when the government dangles “free” money (student loans) to university/college administrators, they will want to stop complying with government “guidance”.
I completed my graduate studies a very long time ago. Academia has changed dramatically since then. I’ve come to see a college degree as more of a commodity than scholarship. It does, however, demonstrate to a prospective employer a certain level of responsibility and persistence-qualities useful in a job.
Face it, nobody is happy to lose money.
Interesting. I have not read that book. Can’t say I agree with the sentiment.
Publicly funded universities should absolutely be held accountable by the taxpayer (government) for what they teach. Shoddy, unethical research has no place in the academy to begin with, and certainly has no entitlement to taxpayer funding at the state or federal level. If the author disagrees with this argument, perhaps my hesitance to buy the book is warranted.
I have recently seen Pluckrose demonstrate elsewhere a lack of understanding of the breadth and destructiveness of this ideology she rails against. Nuggets like these help me to gather a more robust opinion of just how strong these particular academics are as thinkers.
Government shouldn’t be in schools at any level. When Government got involved in Education (late 1970’s) civics was taken out of schools and indoctrination started and now we are seeing the consequences. Division, Lawlessness, Faithlessness, and a brainwashed society. Communism 101
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/regulation_trust_qje.pdf is a piece in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 2010. Here is the first sentence in the intro, “In a cross section of countries, government regulation is strongly negatively correlated with trust.” When in contrast people expect to live in an uncivic community, they expect high levels of regulation and corruption, and do not become civic. Their beliefs again are justified, as their choices lead to uncivicness, high regulation, high corruption, and low levels of entrepreneurial activity.”
The above is a another reference to what you gmmayo70 described earlier.
Relatedly, over time, I’ve observed what appears to be a coalescing of the D and R parties. Both seem determined to enlarge the scope and scale of American government. The Republican, at the same time, are different in that they still appear to believe in some enlightment ideas.
Ever the pessimist, my thoughts about American’s future return to the Jacobins and Girondins in revolutionary France. Like Tars and others, I’m not convinced America is traveling down a road to peace, reason, and minding your own business.
My thoughts turn more toward Munich in the 1920s. You have a race-based movement deciding it needs to legally ascend to power. They even have their own book (more than one, honestly, so they HAVE to be better).
GenXer-
The ascendency and of the Kim family and its continued dictatorship in North Korea used the same play book as did the Soviets, CCP, Nazis, Jacobins, etc. If you enjoy old Twilight Zone episodes, watch/rewatch the episode entitled, “He’s Alive”.
An academic essay is not really necessary to understand the basics on any type of ideology that promises a utopia based on the victim v villain dynamic and force.
Logic won’t overcome zeal. As George Costanza said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it”.
Edit: Strike “and” after ascendency. Sorry.
I know. I prefer using examples casual readers can easily relate to. Loose party/thought groupings from the French Revolution aren’t as relatable these days, and I tend to find the Woke prattlings as empty as what Hitler and his crew offered up. Plus the focus on race is far too similar…something you don’t necessarily find in French Revolution examples or Lenin/Stalin and Mao. Plus I find it ironically satisfying to compare them to something they profess to hate.
used the same play book. This really is infantile. play book. There is no such entity. Your historical paucity is appalling. As for the tripple CP who are they. Jacobins and a play book on the same ground as a once single Korea which was divided thanks to the influence of Amerikan greatness in subdueing the Japanese. Each of your examples had different historical characteristcs. Nor were the tactics let alone their strategies remotely similar.
GenXer-
Speaking of 1920s Germany, the Weimar Republic’s disunity and Great Depression ushered in Hitler’s rise to power. Is America’s current situation different?
Congress just added to the billions/trillions of dollars (newest covid relief bill) to the US debt. Markets are artificially supported by government (our tax dollars) money. Zombie corporations are about 1.4 trillion dollars in debt. Americans are sharply ideologically divided. There’s more too, but I’ll stop.
I realize I sound like an alarmist, but I think we all would be well served if we looked at the totality of America issues and problems
Cal
… and we, America, created more wealth in the first 3 years of the Trump Presidency than ever before in the history of mankind…
What. The Putch was a legal ascent to power? Mein Kampf was written after the Putch.
I believe defunding is a preferable strategy to banning, which I consider to be a dangerous word to be throwing around. Banning has very negative connotations in my opinion and should be used very sparingly.
Critical Theory, being a parasitic and merely destructive ideology, can not survive without a source to feed it. When its proponents call it a parasitic ideology, they are reveling in the fact that the society they are attempting to undermine is often times actually funding their efforts.
There are frequent calls to defund various parasitic or deleterious programs, agencies, or even whole departments, but that calls for political power that does not exist right now. Even in relatively recent times where the political power existed, the political will was notably absent.
Banning requires even more political power, which is not to mention the dangerous nature of banning arguments you disagree with.
Agreed, which is why today’s Leftwing politicians are happy to outsource banning to their corporate benefactors.
No political power or accountability required.
It will still not end well.
I believe that the actions of a private industry should be held to a different standard than government prohibition on speech. While I disagree with Technology companies who are currently skirting the line between content provider and publisher when it comes to banning or restricting speech for ideological reasons rather than issues of legality, I don’t want to use their contemptible behavior to justify using the power of the government to do the same simply because those actions falls in line with my socio-political beliefs.
I believe that pressuring elected government officials to defund the parasitic ideologies will be sufficient. I honestly believe that the foundations of Critical Theory are so weak that it only exists because of an undeservedly charitable interpretation of its arguments, especially given Critical Theory’s own lack of charitable interpretation when it comes to opposing arguments.
The first step is convincing a large enough segment of the population that it is in the best interest of our society to do so. This must be the driving force in convincing public officials to take appropriate action.
One major problem is that it is too easy to dismiss those on the right as “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” etc. whenever they express disagreement with the irrational, toxic, and divisive agendas currently being pushed in the name of social progress. An even larger problem, in my opinion, is that there is very little hope of significant support for such actions on the left.
Overall, I believe we may be mostly in agreement regarding the nature of the problem, except in slight disagreement regarding its solution.
Abercrombie,
I agree about private industry. I didn’t mean to imply that private companies should be held to the governmental standard on speech. However, many of these companies are not being held to the legal standards established for their industries. They are acting has publishers while enjoying the legal status of platforms. I have yet to see the political will necessary to enforce this existing law.
Also, the companies that control a large majority of the market share of social media platforms are throttling, stifling, and outright censoring information in such a way that it unambiguously provides a tangible benefit to one political party. As such, they are not being held accountable for in-kind political contributions. The political will to enforce this law is even less than the publisher/platform issue.
These are existing laws that enjoy no effective support within our current political structure. I’m genuinely curious where you think support for defunding anything will come from. The party that would nominally and rhetorically support defunding would be the Republican party, a party whose track record of reducing funding for anything stops sometime shortly after the turn of the millennium. Since then, Republicans have twice held all the levers of funding and have only succeeded in maintaining government expansion. Indeed in the early 2000s, their expansion of the government was unprecedented.
“The first step is convincing a large enough segment of the population that it is in the best interest of our society to do so. This must be the driving force in convincing public officials to take appropriate action.”
How? The influence of CT expands by the day. The federal bureaucracy largely ignored the Executive’s ban on CRT in the federal service. More and more you see the influence of CRT in popular culture. Academia is a cesspool of it. I agree with you in the abstract here, but this is like saying “All we have to do to reach the stars is achieve lightspeed.”
We cannot ignore, overestimate, or reject the tactics of the radicals who have smuggled this ideology into our society.
Those who would seek to overturn Trump’s ban on this racist bilge did not increase their share of power among the electorate. At the state level, no legislatures flipped to the party that supports neo-segregationism. That same party has been toying around with nullification yet once again, while performing their self-declared role as The Resistance™ for the past four years. They have ignored federal immigration law, federal drug law, and executive orders without legal or electoral repercussion.
It’s time to do the same.
Since control of state legislatures and governorships is largely status quo, your state politicians in “red” states or even counties are much more accessible and vulnerable to the political will of the electorate. Already there are law enforcement entities informing their governors that they will not be enforcing their edicts. Nascent state coalitions are forming in spite of overwhelmingly negative media coverage.
If you’re issuing a call to action, particularly at the state and local levels, this should be your focus – one of many. Because the radicals who have saddled us with CSJ do not attack on only one front, and they never stop.
Again, I never want to de-emphasize the work and effectiveness of the content of these articles. But these folks have managed to make a mockery of the rule of law here by ignoring it. It’s time to return the favor and create a point of friction and boil this to a head. We’ve been caught in the long retreat, so debate and tough questions they have no intention of answering honestly (or even deigning to answer at all) aren’t going to cut it. Their rallying cry is “By Any Means Necessary”.
The hour is late, and the center didn’t hold.
‘But these folks have managed to make a mockery of the rule of law here by ignoring it.’
They ignore it only when it’s not in their favor, and wield it as a neutronium shield when it is. YOU must play by the rules; their rule is as you said ‘By Any Means Necessary’. Since they consider the Constitution and all existing laws and rules part and parcel of systemic bigotry (except when useful to them) they all must be flouted/or eliminated in order to achieve Social Justice. Translation: Rules? There are no rules. Only might.
‘We’ve been caught in the long retreat, so debate and tough questions they have no intention of answering honestly (or even deigning to answer at all) aren’t going to cut it.’
Correct. You can’t have a conversation if your opponent’s stock reply is always ‘I’m right so obey’ justified by their simultaneous assumption that you are evil/crazy/stupid for even thinking of doubting them and therefore deserve to be cancelled or worse if you open your mouth. What helps makes the Woke so terribly hard to combat is that we longer have any news agencies or notable journalists willing to do any investigating, ask any hard questions, or just stand up to this mob, they’ve almost all become sycophantic propaganda vendors beholden to ad revenue and their own personal ambitions and agendas. Their all-out effort this last election, coupled with the Social Media censors, are a big reason why freedoms are going to have a very rough time from now on. Not that many people will be aware of this, since the MSM and Social Media will be constantly telling us that everything is absolutely positively great and pay no attention to those breadlines and riots and criminals, it’s all part of a Grand Right-Wing Conspiracy to turn this country fascist!
IMO we’re only a couple of years away from having to resort to the cartridge box to regain freedoms. Watch how during next couple of years there will be a concerted effort by the Democrats, mostly through executive orders, nationwide injunctions, and other ‘legal’ means, to emasculate the 2nd amendment and start confiscating guns ‘for our safety’ or for the safety of the public. They were already talking about stripping liability protections from weapons manufacturers for the misuse of guns they sold, as a means to putting them out of business. The black AG of NY State is trying to dissolve the NRA, which ironically was founded to ensure that black freedmen could have access to guns. Keep an eye out for further restrictions on or even outright banning of ammunition manufacture and sales. A gun without bullets is just a very expensive club.
If you think fraud in the 2020 election was rampant and decisive, wait until 2022. The goal then will be to flip the Senate, or at least get a 50-50 split. Pushes to legalize ballot harvesting, make all voting by mail, ban counting of votes by citizens from overseas (Pelosi has already proposed doing that), and other legal shenanigans combined with massive importation of illegal aliens into states with Senate races will make the difference. Once the Senate is secured, the packing of the Supreme Court will commence, followed by the lower courts. Oh, and BTW, our skewed polls from now on will always be close to correct thanks to the magic of votes manufactured as needed, and all non-Democrat political opponents will be demonized relentlessly as worse than Mr. H times 10. Maybe I’m doing a parade of the horribles. But I fear that I may even be understating the danger. The patricians who currently rule us don’t intend to ever let the plebes ever get their hands close to the levers of power again if they can help it.
An attitude which is of course behind why Rome turned from a Republic into an Empire. The patricians of that time didn’t think they’d ever fall from power either. Octavian and Antony showed them their error.
I’m not convinced that any significant number of Americans will turn to the “fourth box” anytime soon, though there are many indications that the health of our republic is under tremendous strain and cannot survive its current incarnation much longer. Anyone who thinks he or she knows how all of this will play out is selling something. Here’s my $.02
Being the optimist that I am, we’ll likely see a major political realignment soon between the parties, followed by both major parties effectively splitting in two, possibly within this presidential cycle, but almost certainly the next.
The Democrats will enjoy their newfound corporate support at the expense of the working class they have held in thrall for decades, thus moving more working class support to the Republicans. The Democrats will also attempt to balance between their more centrist reliable voters and their radical Left base with healthcare reform. I expect they’ll go too far for the center and not far enough for the base and create a chasm too large to bridge, fracturing the party and giving rise to a competing party on the Left led by Sanders, or a younger clone.
The Republicans are more difficult to predict due to the wildcard that Trump will still play in the near future. The party will attempt to return to its business as usual, which is what gave rise to the TEA Party and later Trump. Without any meaningful way to oppose Democrats in at least the next two years, the party will return to its 2007-2009 rhetoric of claiming it can’t follow the Trump agenda that proved popular on the Right until it returns to power. Should that unlikely scenario occur, the Republican agenda will still remain business as usual. More likely is that the Republicans will not regain power, and the base in either scenario – being dissatisfied with the inability of its party to achieve any meaningful policy results (probably centering on election security, not just taxes and immigration) – will split to form a new party.
Given that Republicans were the first to buck their national party by electing Trump, I’m guessing the first party split will occur there.
A two party system only works in a high trust society. A high trust society exists when the electorate shares mostly the same values. The US no longer fits this model. An interesting article with hyperlinks that all deserve to be clicked on highlights the problem with data:
https://americanmind.org/features/a-house-dividing/the-separation/
All throughout the western world you see significant separatist movements and balkanization in what were once considered highly stable liberal democracies. Fukuyama was clearly wrong.
‘The Democrats will also attempt to balance between their more centrist reliable voters and their radical Left base with healthcare reform.’
I have to disagree. Now that the Democrats have figured out how to steal national elections and get away with it thanks to Big Tech and their MSM cheerleaders, there will longer be any need for them to turn to the center to cater to those voters. It will be full speed ahead to one-party confiscatory socialist-racist rule and damn the Constitution and all of its pesky restrictive amendments. And the sinking of the USS Constitution will be greeted by them with wild cheering and applause.
Surely our present situation leads itself to the most favorable conditions for your prediction that we have ever seen. I find it difficult to argue against. The millennial generation, being the largest in the US – and also coming into political maturity – favors those outcomes in wildly disproportionate numbers to previous generations. That fact alone should concern anyone. And the overlap with those who have swallowed CT and all its spawn should alarm everyone who prizes the values of a pluralistic liberal democracy.
That said, they still do not outnumber the other politically mature generations, thus I don’t think they can muster the strength or workable ideas to consistently sway the middle (particularly as millennials age they will move more towards the Right). The Democrats’ leftward swing in 2009 got them crucified in 2010, and I’m not sure they could muster enough of their newfound chicanery to peel off enough of the middle to sustain it.
I also freely admit that our current political/electoral climate is such that I have very little faith in my own ability to reasonably predict a thing in politics. Nothing will surprise me.
gmmay70 — but they were never “highly stable liberal democracies” except perhaps in the press, in textbooks and on globes — this actually proves your point re: your political scenario — The United States is the oldest liberal democracy existing on the planet and we are only a little over 200 years of age. In my view the chasms are being caused by the foundational differences that have matured only in this last round of demo-republican leadership. The last generation, 20 years or so. There are large swaths of our political leadership and rank and file activist that do not share America’s foundational value system. Want a stable liberal democracy again. Repair the value system. Easier said than done now with all the entrenched interests, big tech censorship and mass media doing their Marshall McLuhan thing. But that’s the exact coalition that will be successful – the combination of force and brains that can re-establish the organic fundamental American value system instilled in the people.
Norway had the first democratic parliament. Prior Magna Carta.
I agree and besides the legal attack, political resistance and attack, and making the 9-22-2020 order the law of the states and Congress we need an honest to God American Militia able to occupy our Country in times of domestic insurrection or to guard from foreign enemies – the only legally permissible American body that can by law overthrow a tyranny in our Country when the Government won’t or has become the tyrant or elements of it. The states and people are guaranteed a Republican form of government. The only power to effect that guarantee when the government refuses is the American Militia.
James-
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/13/critical-race-theory-is-the-ideology-of-the-bureaucracy/ and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/racism-kemi-badenoch-reni-eddo-lodge-critical-race-theory-b1208279.html provide an interest take on CRT from an English/British perspective. There appears to be increasing rejection of mandated CRT.
By the way, I think you underestimate just how antisocial, evil, and cruel humans can be. I suspect my assessment of human nature has been colored by my work with offenders, parole officers, attorney, cops, and judges. Nevertheless, please don’t forget Solzhenitsyn’s comment that the line between good and evil runs through the hearts of all men.
Don’t underestimate the appeal (for some) of having the power to coerce others into submission.
Wokeism is white male supremacy that uses a liberal coating of BIPOC and alphabet people skin lotion to shield itself against accusations of bigotry. Almost all its intellectual heroes are White or White-adjacent males whether they’re Marx, Foucault, Gramsci, Mao, or the various members of the Frankfurt School. Its tactics are designed to keep BIPOCs and alphabets in their proper place; subordinate and obedient to white activists and their very white financial backers.
You cannot use logic to argue with the Woke, since they reject reason. You must use the same tools they use. For example, when in an argument with a Woke simply self-identify as a member of a marginalized group and accuse them of racism/bigotry for not full-throatedly agreeing with anything you say. If they are white or white-adjacent, tell them that their whiteness and adjacency disqualify them from supporting any marginalized group since their unconscious bias will automatically cause them to treat the marginalized with insufferable bigoted patronizing harm. If the opponent is BIPOC, ask them why they are supporting a white-originated white-centric movement designed to keep them on mental plantations, and when they deny the accusation accuse them of allyship and unconscious bias. Find out what their parents’ socioeconomic status is and if it is not impoverished or worse call them frauds and hypocrites for recreational virtue-signaling to enhance their unjustly inherited social status.
Do not depend upon the city, state, or federal government to help you. Do not expect to get help from large companies or NGOs, since they freely throw to the wolves anybody who doesn’t instantly toe the ideological line. Depend upon yourself. The way to ddestroy Wokeism is to make it so uncool that nobody but a Boomer would espouse its narratives.
BTW, I am a Boomer.
Tars-
I particularly like your: Depend upon yourself.” statement. Sadly, Americans have been unintentionally or deliberately (I think that) disempowered. A variety of sources, I think, caused it.
Helicopter parenting, government nannyism, and schools (pre-K through college/grad school) exerted a synergistic affect to produce the effect.
There is, of course, only one person who can ever be fully trusted and relied upon-oneself.
This really hurts to read, but in the last few months I have come to the conclusion that it truly is the only effective means of dealing with this on an individual level.
We abandon reasoned debate at our own peril, but when one side isn’t playing by those rules anymore, it forces your hand. Perhaps that is by design. The entire ideology driving this can accurately be labeled Social Destructionism. And what better way to dismantle pluralistic liberal democracy than to force its adherents to abandon one of its fundamental tools or intellectual inquiry?
But this is where we’re at.
I’m almost convinced that the lawfare route is also an effective way to go. So along with my usual pleading for more psychological analysis and methodology to combat the racist scourge of CSJ, it’s time to find some lawyers. IANAL, but I just cannot see how this sort of “training” in the workplace survives a legal challenge.
for* intellectual inquiry.
gmmayo70-
I suspect successful legal challenges to CRT depend on the jurisdiction where a case is heard. As to individual efforts to combat CT assaults, I still strongly suggest learning about effective communication skills for coping with borderlines.
Skillful and nuanced manipulation (in a healthy way) of a conversation with a woke person is the best method for self-protection. Imagine you’re speaking with a child about a dangerous behavior they are producing.
Cal,
The legal strategy would depend on bringing cases to multiple federal jurisdictions with the ultimate goal to create a federal circuit split that must be resolved in the USSC. I’m fairly certain this could be heard in numerous federal districts since it involves federal employment law. This is how activists do it all the time. Given the current ideological disposition of the federal courts, I think this is a plausible scenario.
I’d personally be more concerned with finding competent lawyers or firms willing to pursue this sort of litigation, given the ideological disposition of lawyers.
As to communicating with BDPs and NPDs, I’m not advocating against that at all. The more tools the better. But not all of this is coming from people with personality disorders. It’s coming from people who have been granted power and thus given this training a veneer of legitimacy. Logic and reason might work with them, but when it bumps into hierarchal authority, you’re probably going to lose.
And I still have not forgotten your other commentaries. Between being very busy lately, and distracted by other comments/posts here, I’ve been neglectful. I’ll probably end up responding here, since it’s somewhat relevant and easier to access than buried in older threads. I’ll try to be better soon!
gmmayo70-
I agree with your first paragraph. The second one as well. Critical legal theory started back in the late 1970s. It has, like CT in other academic disciplines, inexorably crept into curricula and society. Bernadine Dohrn (of The Weathermen fame) taught Critical legal theory at Northwestern University for a very long time. Originalist attorneys in the private sector may, as you suggest, be harder to find.
Second note: I’m not suggesting nor stating that all CT proponents have a personality disorder. However, many seem to have some qualities or characteristics of a particular disorder. By the way, you may want to read a piece in the journal, Personality and Individual Differences, positing the existence of a new PD, Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. (I don’t think every difference should be pathologized, but the piece is interesting.)
As we’ve noted, the power to control others’ behavior is the goal of some people.
Finally, I look forward to your comments and question for techniques for coping with the woke.
Cal,
And, as if on cue, the first lawsuit I’m aware of is in its infancy.
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1341656154384953344
I’m not a praying man, so I’ll be looking into this to see how I can contribute to its success.
In this essay, James Lindsay has elucidated some of the most pressing issues with respect to the federal Critical Theory ban. This is unsurprising, given his mastery of the ridiculously complex network of ideas contained within CRT dogma. What is surprising is the astonishingly bad grammar throughout the piece. I can easily overlook a few misplaced apostrophes or commas, but the high quantity and extreme nature of the errors that pervade this document turned the act of reading it into a tedious slog. This is important stuff that deserves a much more professional presentation.
I’m generally loathe to bandwagon on something like this, but I’d say this is among my top three critiques of this site. They desperately need a copy editor and a content editor, the latter mainly to pare down some of the content a little.
an excellent opening paragraph. I’m a cold war baby with miscreant genes and mongrel pedigree.