Seems like another good day for a rant about why it's stupid and counterproductive to frame CRT and DEI as "anti-white racism" except if you intend to stop it with the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, which none of them do.
Like, you noticed they're bad to white people, and it's racist, and it's unjust, and it's purposed. Great job, kid. Everyone can see that. Do you want a cookie? Ask some real questions about it:
Why are they doing it, how are they doing it, and what's its purpose?
Then we can get somewhere!
If you're going to point out that there's (Woke) anti-whiteness happening, you have to point out WHY it's happening, and it's not for the sake of anti-whiteness.
It's for some mysterious purposes they call "Social Justice" and "equity," and these are clues. We know they don't mean what they sound like they mean, and we can figure out what they refer to. AND, that matters. A lot. Like, it's the whole story.
Otherwise, it's like saying someone is sick without acknowledging why they're sick. You'll never get the right cure. Virus? Parasite? Bacteria? Cancer? Snakebite? Ingested poison? Organ damage or failure? Injury? Environmental toxin? Allergy?
You better get it right if you're going to attempt a remedy, and if you don't, you might kill the patient thinking you're attempting a cure.
Never attempt to cure what you don't understand!
Those clues lead us to a Soviet program (called korenizatsiya). CRT and DEI are "anti-white" because they are following that playbook. The purpose of that playbook is "to resist great-power chauvinism," which is a Communist strategy for grabbing and consolidating power through ethnic minorities.
CRT and DEI aren't anti-white to be anti-white, even if some of the grifters and jerks who take them up are just being anti-white because they can be, because it's profitable to be, or because they're actually anti-white racists. The programs are designed to steal and consolidate power through manipulating ethnic strife generated from "oppressed" minorities who are trained to understand their circumstances through Marxist doctrine and to weaponize it against the dominant "great power."
In Soviet Russia it was Resist Great Russian Chauvinism. In Maoist China it was Criticize Han Chauvinism. In Woke Western nations it's Abolish White Supremacy Culture. It's the same program. (In Feminism it's Abolish Patriarchy; and in Queer Theory it's Disrupt Cisheteronormativity; and anywhere there's enough indigenous people its Decolonization.)
CRT and DEI aren't "anti-white" to be anti-white, no matter what individuals participating in the programs have for motivations. It is anti-white FOR A PURPOSE, and when you focus on it being "anti-white," you lose the diagnosis completely and cannot effect a cure.
It's like mistaking the waves for the ocean because they're what hits the shore. By far most of the water isn't on the surface, and the cause of the waves isn't the water (it's the wind, usually). Philosophically, this means you're playing in the phenomenology, which they want you to be doing, instead of addressing the actual political program.
So, get it wrong and you'll be off fighting racism (while tying your hands behind your backs by being angry about the Civil Rights Act instead of reclaiming it) which is like treating allergies with antibiotics or cancer with oregano oil and native honey.
That's why it matters that you don't fall into the trap of playing on the surface level (it's anti-white racism) and actually bother to understand that the anti-white racism is a superficial phenomenon that's used as a weapon and an engine for a deeper political program that's actually the real problem.
Meanwhile, if you focus on the superficial "anti-white racism" part, your sense of righteous indignation is likely to flare up and lead you to believe that the best way to fight it is through great-power racial pride. All that does is fuels the engine causing the whole problem because that engine is a Marxist conflict theory of race, that by definition requires people to identify themselves in racial classes that are separated and intrinsically in conflict with one another.
Don't be a fool. Understand what you're actually dealing with, and don't fall for the agitprop of charlatans and dilettantes.
/end rant
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”
All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win.
Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).
The primary reason NYC got Mamdani isn't something to do with the electorate, the climate, or anything else. Mamdani, with tons of weird money, ran a very strong campaign (rare figure) in very weird circumstances, most of which were candidate-specific, not conditional.
Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends.
Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.
The reason I know this is because I was there and doing this full time already by that point in my life.
Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.
These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form.
Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.