Stop Calling Anti-White Hatred “Critical Race Theory.”

The topic of ‘critical race theory’ has become an extremely popular part of the conversation in the conservative sphere, mainly because of vocal opponents like Christopher F. Rufo. Because of the many segments he has been a part of on shows like Tucker Carlson tonight, Rufo has exponentially gained recognition, and so has the subject of ‘critical race theory.’

Admittedly, Rufo has done quite a bit for countering the Anti-White propaganda being promulgated in public and private classrooms across the nation. Because of his work, and the coverage from many conservative media outlets, many Republican controlled states like Florida and Idaho have passed legislation with the goal of banning the ideology from spreading in their schools. But most people, including Rufo, are completely obfuscating what critical race theory really is.

To dub force-fed Anti-White hatred spread by every institution in America with labels used by the very disseminators, is obfuscating the true intentions of those that propagate it. What Rufo calls ‘critical race theory’ or CRT, is really just propaganda used to convince people to despise a particular group of people solely because of the color of their skin.

Critical race theory is anti-White racism and nothing more complicated than that. It’s not ‘reverse racism’ or ‘neo-racism’ it’s simply racism.

What Are Their Arguments?

The Anti-White propagandists, or as Rufo would mislabel them, “critical race theorists,” argue that the system put in place by people of European descent in White countries is fundamentally racist, mainly because the sometimes unequal outcomes of other races. They argue that it does not matter what your opinions are, if you are White you are inherently racist, born with privilege and that you must work to ‘deconstruct’ your inherent ‘Whiteness which they’ve deemed the main culprit.’

A New York City school principal was lambasted recently for passing out fliers to the parents of the students, requesting that they categorize their own ‘Whiteness’ as either ‘White supremacist’ or ‘White abolitionist.’

Many university professors, media pundits, military leaders, and corporate boards have gone as far as to suggest that White people ‘be less White,’ and some even argue White people should give up their property, money, as well as their place in line in education and employment to minorities, to show that they’re truly ‘anti-racist’ and an authentic ‘White ally.’

Some university professors have even argued that merely having White children promotes ‘White supremacy,’ while other professors have called for White genocide.

Government officials like Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot suggest that White journalists shouldn’t even be allowed to ask her questions, while politicians like Rashida Tlaib claim that White people should not have certain jobs at police departments because they’re White. Mainstream media pundits claim that White people shouldn’t even be in government at all.

President Joe Biden’s recent ‘down payment towards equity act’ – which is aid to help Americans with a down payment toward their first home – explicitly mentions that if you are White, you do not qualify for the program. The same racial qualifiers apply to Biden’s recently announced restaurant bail-out which had led to a recent discrimination lawsuit.

The question we should be asking is if White people are being treated this way when they make up 60% of the US population, how are White people going to be treated when they become the minority in America, not only in population but in all positions of power?

Will White people will be afforded the same treatment, leeway, and special programs that minorities are beneficiaries of today?

When did this sort of propaganda and rhetoric not result in genocide throughout history?

Lockheed Martin Corporation, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent white male executives to a three-day diversity-training program aimed at deconstructing their “white male culture.” The company specifically asked for their White employees to to focus on the deconstruction and abolishment of aspects of White culture that has led to the ‘survival of White people.’

A scientific research article published last month in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association called Whiteness “a malignant, parasitic-like condition.” 

The article, titled On Having Whiteness, was written by Dr. Donald Moss. In the article, Moss wrote that “‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility” to the “parasitic” condition, which he claims “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse.” He explained he believed whiteness establishes “entitled dominion” that enables the “host” to have “power without limit, force without restriction, violence without mercy,” and increases one’s drive to “terrorize.”

This is only one of hundreds of papers written in medical journals attacking White people and ‘Whiteness.’

This paper for example encourages white therapists to talk with White clients about their Whiteness.

Dr Aruna Khilanani, a New York-based psychiatrist who was invited to give a talk titled the ‘Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind’ told the audience that she fantasized about ‘unloading a revolver into the head of any white person’ who got in her way.

Dr Khilanani, who runs a practice in Manhattan, delivered the talk to medical students and faculty back in April after being invited by Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center.

Khilanani, who has taught at Cornell and Columbia. made the comments during her talk that was largely based on what she calls the psychology behind ‘Whiteness’. 

These are just a few examples among thousands of examples in academia and employment where White Americans are explicitly prohibited from applying or receiving any benefits. This anti-White epidemic across all of America’s institutions is a possible explanation for why we are seeing a trend emerge where students in universities and adults in search of employment are choosing to identify as anything other than White on applications.

What they call ‘Whiteness,’ and define as having inherent qualities like individualism, protestant work ethic, emphasis on the scientific and mathematical method, meritocracy, English common law, good manners, communication, and the pursuit of clean and safe neighborhoods, is actually fairly accurate. Some notable conservative pundits would use these descriptors to define what Western culture is for example, and they would be correct as well.

The issue is not that they define White culture – or what some may call western culture – accurately. The concern is that they claim White western culture, in general, is unfair because certain groups don’t do as well as other groups, and that we need to lower the bar so that everyone receives an equal outcome for everything. This is what the term ‘equity’ means as opposed to ‘equality,’ which means that everyone has an equal opportunity. This is precisely why the Biden administration has barred White people from applying for his relief for example.

Obfuscation by Conservatives

Some conservatives believe that if they frame critical race theory as anti-White, this would disenfranchise minorities who they believe are likely to join opposition to critical race theory.

Firstly, is this not an admission that non-white people are reluctant to oppose something framed as negatively affecting White people? Furthermore, the majority of non-white people are not enthusiastically opposed to critical race theory in high numbers.

According to recent polls, over 80% of Black Americans still support Black Lives Matter, even after months of rioting. In fact, some polls suggest Black support for Black Lives Matter increased by one percent after months after the George Floyd riots.

Black Americans are also the most likely to view their skin color as central to their identity.

The idea that non-White people are going to be against an idea or legislation that benefits them, is as preposterous as the ‘Blexit’ movement believing that Black Americans were going to vote for Republicans in high numbers in 2016 and again in 2020.

Many conservatives feel that it is only ok to be for or against something if it affects a minority or ‘oppressed’ group in America. Conservatives feel it’s acceptable to stand against Transgenders in women’s sports so long as it’s framed as negatively affecting women, or against mass immigration because it puts the people traveling here at risk, or negatively impacts Hispanic business owners in America. Conservatives also find it acceptable to be publicly against Black Lives Matter or abortion because it affects Black Americans.

In order to be against ‘critical race theory’ many conservatives feel as though they need to frame it as being antisemitic or negatively impacting people of color.

This issue is a symptom of conservatives being propagandized to the point where they too are stuck within the moral framework and worldview of the political left.

The more pernicious angle of the Anti-White propaganda spreading throughout the country, is that the disseminators of this ideology claim we must deconstruct Whiteness by ‘any means necessary,’ and that ‘some White people have to die‘ in order to succeed in destroying ‘White supremacy.’

To continue to label what this really is with innocuous labels like ‘critical race theory’ is to aid in an ideology which seeks to harm White people solely for being White, and destroy a standard that has proven to be the most successful modus operandi in the world. A system, that even non-Whites who fully assimilate into White culture have benefitted greatly from.

Rhetoric That Goes Unpunished, and Often Encouraged

ViacomCBS recently restored its working relationship with Nick Cannon less than one year after the media conglomerate terminated Cannon following a controversial podcast episode.

Cannon was not fired for basically saying that White people are subhuman and closer to animals because their lack of melanin, he was fired specific ally for what he said about Jewish people. His rhetoric against White people on the other hand is encouraged across media and academia, and you can not easily find exactly what he said about White people with a simple internet seach.

Viacom, which is owned by Jewish American billionaire Sumner Redstone, fired Cannon for his ‘antisemitic’ remarks.

No one in the media came to Cannon’s defense in regards to what he said about Jews, but many defended his statements about White people.

Many journalists quickly took to Twitter to post their articles describing Cannon’s statements about White people as ‘speaking out against racism.’  This was an almost identical reaction we observed from the media regarding similar statements about White people made by L’oreal model Munroe Bergdorf.

It is difficult to return exact search results for what Cannon said about White people, but it is even more difficult to locate the exact statements made by Bergdorf.

“Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth, then we can talk,” was just one of the many statements made by the transgender L’oreal model.

After the death of George Floyd, CNN reported that ‘L’Oreal dropped the model for commenting on systemic racism.’ In June, L’oreal rehired Bergdorf using Floyd’s death as a pretext.

Marc Lamont Hill has also said many negative things about White people on CNN, but the international news conglomerate didn’t fire him for his Anti-White remarks, he was terminated after ‘controversial comments’ he made about Israel.

Google recently announced that it was removing its global lead for ‘diversity strategy and research,’ Kamau Bobb, after a 2007 blog post in which he’d made antisemitic comments surfaced.

The Washington Free Beacon this week uncovered a blog post by Bobb titled “If I Were a Jew.” The report, published Tuesday, included excerpts from the post.

“If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself,” the post, which has since been deleted, said.

Several leading Jewish groups, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Stop Antisemitism, tweeted that Bobb should be fired.

In a statement, Google said it condemned “the past writings by a member of our diversity team that are causing deep offense and pain to members of our Jewish community, and said ‘He will no longer be part of our diversity team going forward.’

Who is really in charge here? Who really has the power?

Under the State Department’s formal definition of ‘antisemitism,’ it lists ‘accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group’ as a bullet point of what it means to be ‘antisemitic.’

Why aren’t White people afforded this same immunity?

Like this post?

Leave a Reply

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

Related Posts