Conservative Koch network disavows critical race theory bans

[Torus34]

There may have been several, and they may have been defeated because the general actions associated with lynching— breaking into jails and executing prisoners without trial— are already illegal.

I’m on a phone now so maybe later I’ll satisfy your deep and abiding curiosity, assuming that’s what it is.

Hi again.

My question had a specific purpose. It was to ascertain the level of trust I can place in statements in your posts.

As you ask others to provide back-up for their statements, [See post #49 of this thread,] I assume you're not given to setting up a double standard.

We are both, I hope, in search of that elusive thing we call truth.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Opinions are not truth. If you have something other than that teacher's opinion that CRT (not some made-up definition) was being taught in the school, by all means share it.

The articles that were referenced, one by the BBC, seemed to me to be reasonably unbiased. The BBC article especially presents a balanced perspective.

Those who describe CRT as “As a curriculum subject, critical race theory is largely the purview of university law schools and graduate programmes“ seem to me to remain deliberately blind to the visible fact that CRT has now become something different from merely study at an academic level in law schools, and is being developed into a militant ideology that is being broadcast through many different channels and is having a profound effect on the culture-at-large.

CRT is a set of ideas about the foundational structures at the heart of America and also Americanism, and all of this is under various forms of assault. So the topic really needs to be about this process, the process that we all see occurRing. And the process that most or all progressive-types here support. (This is a forum dominated by Left-Progressive perspectives it seems to me).

If this is so, and it certainly seems to be so, one has to face a more realistic truth about it — critical theory generally, including critical gender theory, and about critical race theory — and try to see it and describe it accurately. Perhaps less as a partisan.

Critical Theory is an evolution of Marxian praxis and is a tool of radical activism. This statement is, it seems to me, as true as rain. But how these perspectives, derived from Marxist theorists, filtered into the legal perspectives, well, that is something that would have to be traced carefully and fairly, would it not?

Some here say “You do not know what CRT really is” and perhaps this is true for some. Yet I have spent now at least a few years examining the roots, at an idea-level, of these newer forms of radical praxis and do not at all feel I am ignorant nor uninformed.

Nor am I unable to see and fully understand the progressive arguments that take a strong stand against racism and discrimination and hold to progressive visions about what society should be, especially in multi-cultural America.

With this in mind, however, I would say that if anyone reading and participating in this thread willfully chooses to pretend that CRT does not attract radical activists who desire to revision and restructure America according to their progressive-left vision, and who refuse to see and describe the radical activism that is on-going in the culture for what it really is, it seems to me that they make as large a mistake as some (so-called) Conservatives who are said to obscure their bigotry as they seek to undermine the validity of CRT (and the other critical theories).

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The thing is... A lot of abolitionists were super racist.

The issue of race-difference, and the facts that surround it, are part-and-parcel of what I might term a *reality* about human life on this planet. I think that one is wiser to start from this view, this perspective, and to define it as something *normal* and in fact natural. I can think of no multi-ethnic society in existence today to which we can refer to as a sort of utopian guide.

So what I tend to focus on is the question: From whence has it come this assertion that it is necessary that people do away with the views and perspectives that support what you will likely term a ‘racist’ perspective — as if this is a moral wrong — when it is far more likely that a sober racialist perspective (especially for POC) is more realistic and certainly attainable?

They did not like the idea of slavery but they also didn't want a bunch of black people living around them. Understanding that is one of the keys to understanding why Reconstruction failed.

But I think it must also be said, or perhaps I could say simply ‘cited’, that if Black people had their own way they would choose to be among their own kind rather than, as was the case, to have been forced to adapt to and become integrated into white culture and all its forms. This is an idea I have explored quite a bit and I think it is sound. The gist of it is that the Black experience in America has been one of coercive force from (literally) day one. Primitive tribal people were ripped out of almost a pre-historical context and forced to labor in America’s plantations.

Thereafter, when a supposed freedom was granted, the very same process simply continued under different terms. But how can this ‘freedom’ be really described as freedom when, for Blacks of African descent, the facts of the case were that they were ripped out of their context and forced to adapt in all senses to a White-European imposition?

What is being proposed is a continued whitewashing of history where a racial underclass was subjugated for a about 240 years and then institutionally supressed for another hundred after that in order to serve economic interests and justified through racism.

But what if the proposition (‘what is proposed’) is taken even further? The liberation of Blacks of African descent must be full and absolute. That they were not granted a region, a state, and a ways-and-means to develop themselves according to their own lights and their own will and desire — is that not the essential problem for Black America even today?

What you say is undeniably true: 240 years of living in a servile state, a fake war of liberation headed by a man (Lincoln) who was adamantly one who did not “want a bunch of black people living around them” and who actually wanted to export them out of the country, and then another 100 years in a nether-political status.

And now where do things stand? It is a cultural and social situation in which many Blacks (apparently) are fundamentally dissatisfied with their circumstances — yet who would not be if any one of us meditated on what that history really is was and is!

While I agree that the progress made has to be learned and celebrated... without the understanding of what and who was standing in the way of that progress and seeing what is left undone is failing to even try to tell the whole story.

There has been an attempt to ‘reeducate’ white people, this is true. That effort began in the Sixties, did it not? The vision, literally, of a Multi-Ethnic America as, literally I would say, a Holy Mission.

When you use the word *progress* you really do mean it. Anything else but your specific vision, which I assume you’d ideologically administer as a proper cultural doctor, will be described by you as ‘regression’, ‘going backwards’, etc.

What if the ‘whole story’ involves a revolutionary movement on the part of Blacks of African descent to achieve their own country? and real political, social and existential freedom? Would you support that?

 

[Jezcoe]

The issue of race-difference, and the facts that surround it, are part-and-parcel of what I might term a *reality* about human life on this planet. I think that one is wiser to start from this view, this perspective, and to define it as something *normal* and in fact natural. I can think of no multi-ethnic society in existence today to which we can refer to as a sort of utopian guide.

So what I tend to focus on is the question: From whence has it come this assertion that it is necessary that people do away with the views and perspectives that support what you will likely term a ‘racist’ perspective — as if this is a moral wrong — when it is far more likely that a sober racialist perspective (especially for POC) is more realistic and certainly attainable?

But I think it must also be said, or perhaps I could say simply ‘cited’, that if Black people had their own way they would choose to be among their own kind rather than, as was the case, to have been forced to adapt to and become integrated into white culture and all its forms. This is an idea I have explored quite a bit and I think it is sound. The gist of it is that the Black experience in America has been one of coercive force from (literally) day one. Primitive tribal people were ripped out of almost a pre-historical context and forced to labor in America’s plantations.

Thereafter, when a supposed freedom was granted, the very same process simply continued under different terms. But how can this ‘freedom’ be really described as freedom when, for Blacks of African descent, the facts of the case were that they were ripped out of their context and forced to adapt in all senses to a White-European imposition.

But what if the proposition (‘what is proposed’) is taken even further? The liberation of Blacks of African descent must be full and absolute. That they were not granted a region, a state, and a ways-and-means to develop themselves according to their own lights and their own will and desire — is that not the essential problem for Black America even today?

What you say is undeniably true: 240 years of living in a servile state, a fake war of liberation headed by a man (Lincoln) who was adamantly one who did not “want a bunch of black people living around them” and who actually wanted to export them out of the country, and then another 100 years in a nether-political status.

And now where do things stand? It is a cultural and social situation in which many Blacks (apparently) are fundamentally dissatisfied with their circumstances — yet who would not be if any one of us meditated on what that history really is was and is!

There has been an attempt to ‘reeducate’ white people, this is true. That effort began in the Sixties, did it not? The vision, literally, of a Multi-Ethnic America as, literally I would say, a Holy Mission.

When you use the word *progress* you really do mean it. Anything else but your specific vision, which I assume you’d ideologically administer as a proper cultural doctor, will be described by you as ‘regression’, ‘going backwards’, etc.

What if the ‘whole story’ involves a revolutionary movement on the part of Blacks of African descent to achieve their own country? and real political, social and existential freedom? Would you support that?

I am not into ethno states.

They are dumb.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I am not into ethno states.

They are dumb.

I would not have imagined that you would be. But the project you are left with, obviously, is to attempt to continue forward in those projects that have been labeled ‘social engineering’. You will need to get hold of the state apparatus, and you will need to impose your progressive vision (as you describe it) through forced-education projects.

It seems to me that if you-plural are really really going to talk realistically about what your views necessitate, you are going to have to begin to speak in far more direct terms. No mincing of words now!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

They are dumb.

Wait, are you saying that those states and nations that are now largely homogenous or completely homogenous — in terms of *race* composition — are dumb?

Does your vision mean that you see what perhaps we can call ‘the blending of peoples’ as something good and necessary, universally?

Would not your idea be based in some larger ideological proposition that ‘all the races of the world should blend together’?

Your position leads to some interesting questions. Are these good questions? Are they fair?

 

[Jezcoe]

I would not have imagined that you would be. But the project you are left with, obviously, is to attempt to continue forward in those projects that have been labeled ‘social engineering’. You will need to get hold of the state apparatus, and you will need to impose your progressive vision (as you describe it) through forced-education projects.

It seems to me that if you-plural are really really going to talk realistically about what your views necessitate, you are going to have to begin to speak in far more direct terms. No mincing of words now!

Also... dumb.

How does one go about constructing an Ethno State in the confines of the United States?

Talking about intrusion and social engineering.... what the imaginary Marxists hiding under your bed want to do is nothing compared to that social, political and economic upheaval.

It is so stupid to even imagine that such a thing would happen without massive loss to human life and authoritarian dictatorship that anyone who would promote such a fantasy should just be left alone in their delusions.

 

[Jezcoe]

Wait, are you saying that those states and nations that are now largely homogenous or completely homogenous — in terms of *race* composition — are dumb?

Does your vision mean that you see what perhaps we can call ‘the blending of peoples’ as something good and necessary, universally?

Would not your idea be based in some larger ideological proposition that ‘all the races of the world should blend together’?

Your position leads to some interesting questions. Are these good questions? Are they fair?

They are dumb questions.

People are to be left to the pursuit of their own happiness.

 

[ClaraD]

Who is actually "Conservative" here?
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — By THOMAS BEAUMONT yesterday
As conservative political groups mobilize to ban in schools what they call critical race theory, one prominent backer of Republican causes and candidates is notably absent.
Leaders in the network built by the billionaire Koch family say they oppose government bans over teaching about race and history in schools. While they note they don’t agree with the ideas at the center of the fight, they argue the government bans, now enacted in 11 states, stifle debate essential to democracy.
“Using government to ban ideas, even those we disagree with, is also counter to core American principles — the principles that help drive social progress,” said Evan Feinberg, executive director of the Koch-affiliated Stand Together Foundation.

I'm not promoting or condoning the banning of speech, ideas or information but the age of the recipients must always be taken into consideration.
And since "critical race theory" is obviously racist hate propaganda it should never be used to corrupt the fragile young minds of susceptible children.
At the appropriate level of cognition to recognize the difference in information and propaganda; these subjects will and should be open to discussion.

CRT is an elective course in some Universities....it isn't a required study nor is it taught to children.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The conjoined ideas that racism is “at the center” of American culture rather than aberration of particular individuals, and that whites “consciously or unconsciously” seek to dominate non-whites no matter what individual whites may do or say. (Quotes taken from the words of CRT founder Derick Bell.)

CRT is the theory; anti racism is the praxis.

lmao, this isn't CRT

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Also... dumb. How does one go about constructing an Ethno State in the confines of the United States?

Perhaps you could examine it more as a thought-experiment? I will say however that *in the course of historical events* massive restructurings have taken place (I mean in world history generally).

I remember reading numerous articles that realistically examined the fact that the nation America has already sort-of divided into different *regions*.

Talking about intrusion and social engineering.... what the imaginary Marxists hiding under your bed want to do is nothing compared to that social, political and economic upheaval.

In no sense can you fairly say that the influence of Marxists, Marxism, and neo-Marxist is a fantasy or a paranoid assertion. You likely do do this, and will do this, but I will say that if you do you are yourself investing in a false-assertion. The influence of Marxist activists within American society cannot be denied.

The actual question is whether you are aware of that influence, and can trace it back through the various proponents. And then comes the task of assessing Is it a good thing, a *bad* thing, or is it indifferent?

It is so stupid to even imagine that such a thing would happen without massive loss to human life and authoritarian dictatorship that anyone who would promote such a fantasy should just be left alone in their delusions.

But there have been many many instances of ‘massive loss of life’ throughout all of history. I am not sure if we are done with it. But please do not make it seem that I advocate or hope for this. I tend to see the conversations that go on here, among soft-headed Liberals and Progressives, as rather entrenched.

You seem to accuse the Right and the Conservatives (these are generally bad words on this forum) of being extremely short-sighted or similarly entrenched in bigotry (etc.) but fails to see similar entrenchment in your own positions.

So to examine all these issues with a more incisive intentionality does not seem a bad thing. Or do you see it that way?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

People are to be left to the pursuit of their own happiness.

Wait, if this is true then you must apply it to those who do not get behind, and perhaps want no part of, your progressive (somewhat utopian?) vision of how society should be.

But I think we do get close to the actual facts: today there is a tremendous, and developing, conflict between different views, perspectives and visions of what America is and should be.

Do you agree?

 

[Jezcoe]

Perhaps you could examine it more as a thought-experiment? I will say however that *in the course of historical events* massive restructurings have taken place. I remember reading numerous articles that realistically examined the fact that the nation America has already sort-of divided into different *regions*.

Colin Woodard's book "American Nations". Nice Guy. Had a lovely but breif conversation with him back in July. Love his books. I disagree with his premise and I thnk that the American nations model can't be used for anything more than a thumbnail sketch and when one drills down past the bird's eye view the whole thing falls apart. He would also find the idea of using his theory to support the establishment of ethnostates to be a gross misunderstanding of his work.

The influence of Marxist activists within American society cannot be denied.

The Marxists lost. The Birchers won. That is the truth.

But there have been many many instances of ‘massive loss of life’ throughout all of history. I am not sure if we are done with it. But please do not make it seem that I advocate or hope for this. I tend to see the conversations that go on here, among soft-headed Liberals and Progressives, as rather entrenched.

You seem to accuse the Right and the Conservatives (these are generally bad words on this forum) of being extremely short-sighted or similarly entrenched in bigotry (etc.) but fails to see similar entrenchment in your own positions.

So to examine all these issues with a more incisive intentionality does not seem a bad thing. Or do you see it that way?

There is zero way that any EthnoStates can be established within the confines of the US without Authoritarianism and mass death.

To think that it would play out any other way is lunacy.

 

[Jezcoe]

Wait, if this is true then you must apply it to those who do not get behind, and perhaps want no part of, your progressive (somewhat utopian?) vision of how society should be.

But I think we do get close to the actual facts: today there is a tremendous, and developing, conflict between different views, perspectives and visions of what America is and should be.

Do you agree?

If the pursuit of one's happiness is really concerned with not having any black people around then I think that one has their priorities way out of whack.

 

[TomFitz]

The Washington Examiner piece cited four specific schools that are teaching what should be termed “anti-racism” rhetoric. Have you a specific reason to believe that any of these four claims is false?

What I see happening on this thread is addressed at the beginning of that article: that proponents of anti-racist rhetoric like to muddy the philosophical waters by asserting that CRT is only taught at the academic level. The writer’s only fault is that he didn’t succeed in describing the links between CRT and populist anti-racism as practiced in k-12. Not that Mad Libs would listen to the most detailed proofs.

So, you’re admitting that the link you cited does not support the claim you’re trying to push? (I already knew that!)

 

[TomFitz]

Sources for the claim in your second to last paragraph?

Here is the documentation for my second to the last paragraph.

As I said, there are thousands of school districts in the US, so the Manhattan Institute finding 30 that they labelled that way is less then 1/4 of 1% of them all.

As for the paragraph I think you really meant, the refutation of the Examiner’s false claim is right there in the link in your own article. Had you bothered to actually read it, you would have known.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Colin Woodard's book "American Nations". Nice Guy. Had a lovely but breif conversation with him back in July. Love his books. I disagree with his premise and I thnk that the American nations model can't be used for anything more than a thumbnail sketch and when one drills down past the bird's eye view the whole thing falls apart. He would also find the idea of using his theory to support the establishment of ethnostates to be a gross misunderstanding of his work.

Ah yes, that is the fellow. But I seem to remember reading an earlier article that identified 7 regions.

My own view is that I think there is far more afoot in the present political situation, both in the US and pertaining to the US politically and socially, and also at a world level.

I was not referencing the notion of developing regions as a predictive tool For what will, or should happen.

 

[Jezcoe]

Here is the documentation for my second to the last paragraph.

As I said, there are thousands of school districts in the US, so the Manhattan Institute finding 30 that they labelled that way is less then 1/4 of 1% of them all.

As for the paragraph I think you really meant, the refutation of the Examiner’s false claim is right there in the link in your own article. Had you bothered to actually read it, you would have known.

It isn't "The Manhattan Institute" which gives the claim a false air of legitimacy but Christopher Rufo who said of CRT "The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans."

So there is that

 

[Alizia Tyler]

If the pursuit of one's happiness is really concerned with not having any black people around then I think that one has their priorities way out of whack.

Yes, but you are making an assertive statement. Injecting or projecting your own view as a must or a should. I am only trying to identify the ideological underpinning to the things we believe, say and think.

I can think of no good reason at all why, for example, a Black person might not want to live exclusively among her or his own kind. Would it be morally wrong in your view?

And I look at the issue very differently, as a starting point. If Blacks of African descent said to me, directly, “I really do not want to associate with Whites nor do I enjoy or relish existing under the constraints of white culture, and I envision something different, and better, for myself”, I would not react against this statement, as if it is immoral and *wrong*.

Unlike you (apparently) I am not opposed, starting at the idea-level, that a given people should have the right to define who they are, who they want to be, who they associate with.

But the main point is not to take a specific side, it seems to me, but rather to notice that here in the US there is a huge debate and conflict which seems to center around the cultural and social reality that is resulting from the attamept to establish a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation.

Also, the problem and the issue is not confined to the US. For example France (important to me for family reasons) is now dealing with cultural and social conflict that follows a similar pattern, on a smaller scale perhaps, as the US.

Do you think I am wrong in seeing this?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Christopher Rufo who said of CRT

There is a recent article in The New Yorker (June 2021) that references this perspective/interpretation:

​

This inquiry, into the footnotes and citations in the documents he’d been sent, formed the basis for an idea that has organized cultural politics this spring: that the anti-racism seminars did not just represent a progressive view on race but that they were expressions of a distinct ideology—critical race theory—with radical roots. If people were upset about the seminars, Rufo wanted them also to notice “critical race theory” operating behind the curtain. Following the trail back through the citations in the legal scholars’ texts, Rufo thought that he could detect the seed of their ideas in radical, often explicitly Marxist, critical-theory texts from the generation of 1968. (Crenshaw said that this was a selective, “red-baiting” account of critical race theory’s origins, which overlooked less divisive influences such as Martin Luther King, Jr.) But Rufo believed that he could detect a single lineage, and that the same concepts and terms that organized discussions among white employees of the city of Seattle, or the anti-racism seminars at Sandia National Laboratories, were present a half century ago. “Look at Angela Davis—you see all of the key terms,” Rufo said. Davis had been Herbert Marcuse’s doctoral student, and Rufo had been reading her writing from the late sixties to the mid-seventies. He felt as if he had begun with a branch and discovered the root. If financial regulators in Washington were attending seminars in which they read Kendi’s writing that anti-racism was not possible without anti-capitalism, then maybe that was more than casual talk.​

​

As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.​

 

[Jezcoe]

Yes, but you are making an assertive statement. Injecting or projecting your own view as a must or a should. I am only trying to identify the ideological underpinning to the things we believe, say and think.

I can think of no good reason at all why, for example, a Black person might not want to live exclusively among her or his own kind. Would it be morally wrong in your view?

And I look at the issue very differently, as a starting point. If Blacks of African descent said to me, directly, “I really do not want to associate with Whites nor do I enjoy or relish existing under the constraints of white culture, and I envision something different, and better, for myself”, I would not react against this statement, as if it is immoral and *wrong*.

Unlike you (apparently) I am not opposed, starting at the idea-level, that a given people should have the right to define who they are, who they want to be, who they associate with.

But the main point is not to take a specific side, it seems to me, but rather to notice that here in the US there is a huge debate and conflict which seems to center around the cultural and social reality that is resulting from the attamept to establish a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation.

Also, the problem and the issue is not confined to the US. For example France (important to me for family reasons) is now dealing with cultural and social conflict that follows a similar pattern, on a smaller scale perhaps, as the US.

Do you think I am wrong in seeing this?

Who one wishes to associate with or not is none of my concern.

There is no "huge debate"in the United States surrounding the "attempt" to establish a mutli cultural/mutli ethnic nation. We have been a Multi Cultural/Multi Ethnic Nation for a couple of centuries now. So... too late.

What is at discussion is talking about the crimes and atrocities of those who stood in the way of our current multi cultural/multi ethnic nation for some dumb notion of a White Supremacist Oligarchy.

 

[Jezcoe]

There is a recent article in The New Yorker (June 2021) that references this perspective/interpretation:

​

This inquiry, into the footnotes and citations in the documents he’d been sent, formed the basis for an idea that has organized cultural politics this spring: that the anti-racism seminars did not just represent a progressive view on race but that they were expressions of a distinct ideology—critical race theory—with radical roots. If people were upset about the seminars, Rufo wanted them also to notice “critical race theory” operating behind the curtain. Following the trail back through the citations in the legal scholars’ texts, Rufo thought that he could detect the seed of their ideas in radical, often explicitly Marxist, critical-theory texts from the generation of 1968. (Crenshaw said that this was a selective, “red-baiting” account of critical race theory’s origins, which overlooked less divisive influences such as Martin Luther King, Jr.) But Rufo believed that he could detect a single lineage, and that the same concepts and terms that organized discussions among white employees of the city of Seattle, or the anti-racism seminars at Sandia National Laboratories, were present a half century ago. “Look at Angela Davis—you see all of the key terms,” Rufo said. Davis had been Herbert Marcuse’s doctoral student, and Rufo had been reading her writing from the late sixties to the mid-seventies. He felt as if he had begun with a branch and discovered the root. If financial regulators in Washington were attending seminars in which they read Kendi’s writing that anti-racism was not possible without anti-capitalism, then maybe that was more than casual talk.​

​

As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.​

Yeah... that perspective shows that Rufo makes up shit for the stupid culture war.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

There is no "huge debate"in the United States surrounding the "attempt" to establish a mutli cultural/mutli ethnic nation. We have been a Multi Cultural/Multi Ethnic Nation for a couple of centuries now. So... too late.

Fair enough. I mean that in the sense that I see and understand your view. But your view is a tendentious imposition, not what I might call an ‘accurate fact’. You are describing what you want not necessarily what is.

However, that does not mean that in some ways you are not right and correct.

My assertion has only gone so far as to try to identify, in more accurate fair and realistic terms, what is actually going on in the country today.

And I notice, or believe that I notice, that you seem to *hunker down* into your preferred, determined view.

And I notice that both Progressives and also Conservatives, especially on this forum! do similar things.

What is at discussion is talking about the crimes and atrocities of those who stood in the way of our current multi cultural/multi ethnic nation for some dumb notion of a White Supremacist Oligarchy.

Now I think you are getting more to the core of your own political and ideological position — and are stating it plainly.

So in relation to this, in relation to what you are saying, I notice that there is a far larger battle going on and that it has to do with ‘How America is defined* and also *where it will go* when the definition is fully realized.

What is ‘at discussion’ for you certainly has relevance, and I definitely want to read and better understand your view, but I certainly do not have to accept it as being either *true* or — what is the word I look for? — valid and good.

Once you have broached the term ‘white supremacy’ you have, I think, really put your cards on the table. You have now totally weaponized the concepts and also the struggle.

I am simply noting this.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yeah... that perspective shows that Rufo makes up shit for the stupid culture war.

No sir! That would be a tendentious projection on your part. Applied opinion perhaps?

The influence of Marxists and Marxism in American politics go back to the era of the Civil War. The greater influence of Marxists and Marxism became more prevalent in the teens and 1920s in America. It would be a mistake to say that this influence was wholly *bad* however, and that would be a silly way to reduce Marxist economic and social theory.

Later, in the Sixties, there are dozens and possibly hundreds of activists who were trained Marxists (Angela Davis is surely one) and those influenced by Marxist theory in all social categories — politics, law, economics, gender and race studies, religious studies, psychology — that cannot be denied. And of course I refer here to the extraordinary influence of the Frankfurt intellecuals. Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm to a lesser extent.

No, the Cultural War is real indeed. And complex. I think you said it well when you referred to the original Abolitionists. Their actual ideas and position were very different, far more complex and even weird, than is generally assumed.

But eeeeevverrryyyyything is similarly weird and complex these days. Convoluted is perhaps the best word, don’t you think?

 

[Jezcoe]

Fair enough. I mean that in the sense that I see and understand your view. But your view is a tendentious imposition, not what I might call an ‘accurate fact’. You are describing what you want not necessarily what is.

However, that does not mean that in some ways you are not right and correct.

My assertion has only gone so far as to try to identify, in more accurate fair and realistic terms, what is actually going on in the country today.

And I notice, or believe that I notice, that you seem to *hunker down* into your preferred, determined view.

And I notice that both Progressives and also Conservatives, especially on this forum! do similar things

It isn't a veiw. It is the reality of the United States. Do you think that the Cavaliers who settled Virginia had anything culturally in common with Puritans who settled Massachusettes? Back in England they were on opposite sides of a Civil War. The Puritans came from a cultural movement that was concerned with land reform, equality and democracy where the Cavaliers were more interested in recreating the oligarchical society that they came from.

Later movements of Scots-Irish.. who had nothing in common with those two other groups settled into the Appalachias to make an individualist paradise while the settlers of South Carolina had Locke write up their constitution for the benefit of the landed gentry.

Then later you can look at the Louisiana French Creole having little in common with those people... and I could go on and on and on.

The definition of what is and is not "White" has expanded with the needs of political power. The ehtnicity of Irish and Italian were not "White" a little over a century ago and their culture was alien to the predominate culture where they settled. They created a mutl ethnic and multi cultural society

Once you have broached the term ‘white supremacy’ you have, I think, really put your cards on the table. You have now totally weaponized the concepts and also the struggle.

I use the term "White Supremacy" because that is the term that they used. One cannot read and understand 1800's US History without understanding that.
.