See the first in written form here and/or video form here.
See the third in written form and in video (part 1 is available exclusively on JoshWhoTV. Part 2 is in progress).
Isn’t it funny how some social justice warriors are against justice? How those who claim to be against fascism are for censorship? How those who argue for tolerance are intolerant? How those who are against hate speech utter hateful speech?
Imagine an America without the presumption of innocence. Imagine, for example, that if a woman accuses you of raping her, you are automatically considered guilty - oh wait… I am describing the whole #metoo and #believeher thing. Ok, well, imagine that you are accused of murder by the government and imagine that because you are accused, you are automatically guilty in the eyes of the law. Maybe you are given an opportunity to prove your innocence but because such things are often difficult or impossible (which is why the burden of proof belongs to the accuser, not the accused), you are unable to do so. Imagine this absurd and unjust system is widespread practice. That is a system in which you are not recognized as a human with rights. You are a nobody rather than a some body, as in habeus corpus which has it’s root in the Magna Carta1 of 13th century England and it’s flower in the US Constitution2.
Now imagine that you are considered guilty of wrongdoings that other people have committed but which you have not because you are of the same sex as they are… oh wait, that’s already a thing, the whole #metoo and #believeher thing. Damnit. Ok, then imagine that because you have the roughly similar skin tones you are punished for deeds other people commit. Imagine that this is widespread practice.
Obviously, such a system would be intolerably unjust, at least for Americans, and this is why we place such importance on the presumption of innocence. Sadly, we tolerate blatant violation of presumption of innocence in some cases. Take, for example, those apprehended on January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol being punished with solitary confinement, beatings and other mistreatment as if they were proven guilty in a fair trial3 or American citizens of Japanese decent held in concentration camps during World War II or the unconstitutional but widespread practice of asset forfeiture. Ok, so we do tolerate blatant injustice. Well, we shouldn’t. We should be grabbing our pitch-forks, torches and guns and head over to the… …well, you know.
At any rate, we shouldn’t tolerate violations of the presumption of innocence such as those that critical race theorists argue for. The book Critical Race Theory - an Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic is cited by major universities4 in support of CRT and it reads…
A version of white privilege sometimes appears in discussions of affirmative action. Many whites feel that these programs victimize them, that more qualified white candidates will be required to sacrifice their positions to less qualified minorities.
To be fair, it’s not about feelings. It’s dishonest of the authors to try to make you think that it is. Then again, the authors are products of law school.5 It’s easier to recognize the fork in the tongue when we remember that a snake is talking.6 It has nothing to do with feelings. It’s a fact. That’s an unavoidable result affirmative action and diversity quotas. Yes, affirmative action and diversity quotas are presented as a solution to the problem of hiring people because of their skin color rather than their resume. This surely still happens to some degree in an informal way. Thanks to affirmative action it’s universal and formal.
So, is affirmative action a case of “reverse discrimination” against whites? Part of the argument that it is rests on an implicit assumption of innocence on the part of the white person displaced by affirmative action.
Notice that the authors are implying that white people are guilty of being white and that therefore if certain race-based hiring practices discriminate against them they deserve it. This is an example of how they use racism as a weapon while hiding behind the mask of anti-racism.
The narrative behind this assumption characterizes whites as innocent, a powerful metaphor, and blacks as - what? Presumably, the opposite of innocent, namely, guilty. They are like thieves who enter where they do not belong and take things that others have worked hard for.
Well, yes, exactly, thanks. Notice that they set up a false choice between two things as if only one or the other can be true. This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. They seem to regard their target audience as irrational and stupid. They continue…
By contrast, many critical race theorists and social scientists hold that racism is pervasive, systematic, and deeply ingrained. If we take this perspective, then no white members of society seem quite so innocent. 7
Lest ye be lulled to think that CRT is racist against white people only, know that authors Delgado and Stefancic suggest that Asian Americans and Jewish Americans take advantage of a white supremacist system to gain more success than brown and black Americans are able to. See, for example, page 111, but to be fair, read it in context. You’ll see that they are not just asking questions. They are implying answers; racist answers.
Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?
What sort of dishonest, sociopathic, intelligence-insulting racists swallow this poison? What sort of parent lets the school feed this toxin to their children? Know that Biden wants your children to be indoctrinated with critical race theory in schools and that efforts to block this has been failing in a lot of red and blue states.
In future reports I will explore other aspects of Critical Race Theory. For example, I will do more than briefly show you evidence that CRT is communist.
All of this to denigrate liberty, equality, the Bill of Rights, capitalism and America itself to open the backdoor for racial supremacy and communism.
One more thing just to drive home the point. Consider that CRT comes from critical legal studies and that in their glossary, Delgado and Stefancic define “critique of rights” as the position held by critical legal studies that, “rights are alienating, ephemeral, and much less useful than most people think.”8
Magna Carta clause 39…
Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut disseisiatur aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale iudicium parium suorum vel per legem terre.
(“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”)
In the first instalment of this series, we highlighted the University of Oregon’s lesson on CRT, for example, that paraphrases from Critical Race Theory An Introduction (3rd edition). It’s one of a few titles included in this selected bibliography at the University of Oregon.
Delgado and Stefancic write on page 5 of Critical Race Theory An Introduction (3rd edition) “…critical race theory builds on the insights of two previous movements, critical legal studies and radical feminism, to both of which it owes a large debt.” According to the back cover, Delgado is the John J. Sparkman Chair of Law at the University of Alabama and Stefancic is Professor and Clement Research Affiliate at the University of Alabama.
Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic, pg. 91 (3rd edition).
Critical Race Theory An Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic, pg. 171 (3rd edition).