FLUFFYPINK, COMPASSIONATE AND CARING? THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL.
There are too many branches of this neo-Marxist, post-modernist ideology to cover them all, let alone a single one in any detail. But as they share the format ‘critical [X] theory/justice’ where the [X] can be ‘feminist,’ ‘race,’ ‘queer,’ ‘gender,’ (etc) or the overarching catch-all ‘social’… forgive me if I focus in a shallow-dive manner on but a couple. Queer and Race.
… and here I’m not referencing people who merely identify as ‘queer’ or ‘black’ but to those ideological advocates more deeply rooted in the literature, concepts, aims and goals of critical queer theory or critical race theory.
Take a sip of tea. Or something stronger. Here goes…
Critical Queer theorists (familiar with Butler/Sedgwick/Foucault/Derrida etc) do not want anything whatsoever to be seen as ‘normative’ and this goes beyond mere ‘heteronormativity’ to include homosexuality and transgender.
‘Queerness’ has no interest in LGBT civil rights or acceptance, except in so far as viewing LGBT individuals as ripe for ‘queering’ (subversion/conversion). Thus most self-identifying ‘queers’ mistakenly understand their own ‘identity’ if they see themselves as part of the LGBT(Q) community and are in support of LGBT activism.
Sounds daft (and is ultimately self-defeating, but hey) yet it’s true.
‘Queer’ is argued to be an unanchored and perpetual state of gender/sexual-preference flux (or ‘potentialities’) where all things non-queer are defined as ‘normative’ and ‘oppressive.’ Anything that can be categorised or ‘normalised’ is oppressive by definition. Queer is seen to be the ‘perfect’ and ‘ultimate’ and ‘true and only’ identity (particularly, though not exclusively, in sexual-preference terms) orientation, either (initially) subordinating all other ‘identities’ into sub-categorisations of queer, or ultimately denying their existence.
Queer theorists also demand that a ‘queer-identity’ isn’t enough to qualify as an ally of critical social justice, you must also be politically-active, morally required to utilise whatever platform is available to you to support critical queer/social justice.
Young (mentally, more than merely physically) girls (arguably the most socially-focused and status-aware group) are a stated focii/target of queer theorists; such girls, (bombarded into) seeking to escape the ‘evil’ of being ‘white’ or ‘privileged’ or ‘straight’ or ‘bigoted’ or ‘racist’ – or whatever – are encouraged (and drawn) towards declaring as ‘queer’ in order to demonstate an allyship with critical social justice and thus to create a protective shield against such accusations and signal both virtue and support for the aims of whichever critical social justice identity by which they are ‘morally and structurally determined (a Marxist tenet).’
There is an understandable tendency towards ‘allyship’ within the ‘oppressed/victimised’ community/mindset. Those that see injustice and oppression with regards to race, gender, trans, gay, fat, ableness etc are therefore the easiest targets for ‘queering.’
Women, particularly (as mentioned) young girls (whether heteronormative or not), anyone identifying as gay, homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, trans… are to be encouraged/coerced/shamed into ’embracing a queer identity.’
Heteronormative males are – obviously – a lost cause; besides, they are the oppressor class so they can’t be ‘converted’ without the entire theory evaporating in a cloud of unsmoke.
Where an individual sees themselves as bisexual (for example), attempt should be made to convince them that they’re ‘partially’ queer (by some tortured definition that would include bisexuality as being defined as ‘queer’ by default, as in ‘not normal’)… and thus encouraged to append ‘queer’ to their ‘identity profile’ and ‘sense-of-self’ as part of their ‘essence.’
The ever-expanding list of ‘queer identities’ is simply confounding (as it is intended to be)… gender-neutral, homoaro, pansexual, asexual, two-spirit, ace, polygender, non-binary, furry, agender, kink, genderfluid, folx, solosexual, allosexual/zedsexual, aromantic, demisexual, panromantic asexual, heteroflexible… where it is argued to be ‘liberating’ to create your own, personalised sexual/gender identity. This isn’t the reality, however. It’s far more about ‘joining’ a like-minded club rather than discovering your own identity.
Polyaqualimp (PAL). Assigned male attracted to x-spectrum multiples unless in water.
This approach is clearly lacking any defensible anchor to fact (science) or reality. It’s merely a smörgåsbord of faddish categories from which you can choose the one that suits your kaleidoscopic palate and current whim. Advocates rarely ‘live the lifestyle’ of their chosen dish… and they are rarely content or happy. It often disappoints when your fellow polyaqualimps turn out to be simply… unpleasant.
Speaking personally, I sincerely don’t give a damn how or what a person identifies with or as. I have absolutely no inclination to interfere with or negatively judge or restrict or impact any person’s life-choices or expression… even (and especially) if I love them dearly. I would, however, expect the same level of respect in return… both on a personal level and – more to the point – culturally and societally.
I realise that, as a self-declared and self-identified polyaqualimp, I am a minority in my family, larger community, society and culture. That’s just how it is and there’s nothing anyone can do about it; it’s not by design or intent. Even if I truly believe that my society and culture are ‘oppressive’ and/or ‘dominant,’ it is not my ‘right’ to force (or even argue or insist) that society and culture accommodate me, ‘validate’ me, ‘represent’ me in film or on TV, or accord me any status whatsoever, as a polyaqualimp. I have no rights above or beyond those of my fellow-citizens. It would be nonsensical of me to insist that my society ‘normalise’ me when I believe ‘normal’ is an oppressive construct.
If society and culture do not reflect polyaqualimps, that is only to be expected (it’s a non-normative identity); and there are only fifty-seven of us, after all… and Danny once got erect while swimming, so he’s probably a trojan horse for the polyaquahards… so, fifty-six.
Queering isn’t merely the practice of absorbing LGBT identities, it also concerns itself with the subversion of any/all academic disciplines. For example, students of mathematics appropriate the role of liberationists and there are often tones of teaching mathematics for social justice. In one fifth-grade mathematical investigation on income of married couples, students used mathematics to challenge the hegemonic structure of marriage by considering the intersectionality of sexuality, gender and class to address ‘systemic inequalities.’ In ‘Critical Concepts in Queer Studies and Education’…
Mathematical inqueery, drawing on queer theory, interrogates the “regimes of the normal” (Warner, The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life. New York: The Free Press, 1993) in mathematics and mathematics education. It is not merely the inclusion of queer students and issues into the curriculum, but instead consists of questioning the tasks, strategies, and ways of thinking about and doing mathematics. In this chapter, the author discusses some of the ways queering mathematics and mathematics pedagogy have been taken up in the author’s teaching and scholarship such as by queering geometry, mathematical rhetoric/argumentation, and time.
Queerness, in actuality, isn’t a joke. Especially activist-queerness. It’s serious, to those who merely claim a queer-identity but, more specifically, to those that fully-understand the doctrine.
Queer does not have a stable definition as it acquires meaning from its oppositional relation to ‘the norm.’ Queer is everything that is at odds with the dominant, legitimate and normative; anything manufactured by straight, white men as a means of oppression (law, science, gender, culture, education, civilisation etc).
As with all forms of critical [X] theory, there comes a point – a hump in the road – where a sinister (in my opinion) taint becomes clear… and a point where it can become somewhat concerning (to rational, objective and aware people) and it is here that understanding requires knowledge of foundational doctrines and tenets.
Should this knowledge be achieved, I believe there is a good chance that any objective, thoughtful and aware individual merely identifying as ‘queer’ will abandon the identification entirely and, hopefully, see themselves in terms of their true (and beautiful) ‘queerless’ individuality, adrift from any form of ideologically-driven intersectional identity category or association.
Why would I believe this? Because I tend to think that the good/loving aspects of a human are most often dominant… inherently. I also think that knowledge can set thoughtful people free. I know… poor, deluded me!
[Interlude]
As an aside, in my opinion, the sense that one is ‘not normal’ is… actually… moot.
We are all predominantly individual by default. We share biological and cultural and societal commonalities, true… but in a mix that is thoroughly individualised. The ‘tribes’ or ‘identities’ that we belong to devolve from species categorisations all the way down to our own, individual hair-colour or the amount of freckles we have, for example… all of which make us individually-unique, and therefore distinct from large swathes of our peers… and thus ‘not normal.’
Defining oneself through the definitions of a particular tribe-set actually, to me, illustrates a striving for ‘normalcy.’ Or perhaps more accurately, a sense of ‘belonging.’
A true sense of ‘belonging’ (as a human, technically) is to our species, for it is at that level that we diverge from other species… although (obviously) if we seek deeper ‘belongings’ then ‘life’ becomes the ultimate tribe. We are one with the trees. It’s at this level of ‘identity’ that questions of ‘normalcy’ become irrelevant, surely; there are so many ‘normals’ that we are all, in truth, not-normal… and therefore definitively ‘normal.’
The more defined our sense of belonging, the more practical and manageable it can become… in terms of shared aims and goals… and our sense of family or community or country, say. Normal, after all, is merely the condition of being the ordinary, usual state; it infers no superiority or judgment.
All of this invalidates any effort made to be either normal or not-normal, or ‘queer’ and ‘non-queer’. It’s a perpetual moot-state. A blind alley. Unless that is, you happen to be a queer theorist and doctrinal-believer; most people, in truth, are just fashionistas and trend-followers… modern ‘Bay City Rollers’ with an added emphasis on activism (imagine what that would have been like).
That critical queer theorists seek to make ‘queerness’ (the state of being in opposition to normalcy) dominantly normal is a clear signal of the intellectually-void and conceptually vapid and vacuous ludicrousness of proponents.
[End of Interlude]
So… anyway… here’s the sinister hump when it comes to critical queer theory…
When it comes to ‘essence,’ Critical Queer Theory (one of the many adjuncts of Critical Social Justice and perhaps the most purely ‘post-modern’) promotes a ‘disruptive assault’ against ‘normalcy’ in the form of a coordinated and widespread (and well-documented/evidenced) attack upon ‘childhood innocence’ itself.
‘Childhood innocence’ in the literature is most-accurately termed an ‘identity without an essence.’ This category is rather broad and includes sadomasochism and the BDSM sub-culture, as well as homosexuality, but it is with reference to minors that a taint appears, at least to me.
‘Childhood innocence’ is argued to stem (conceptually) from ‘cis-heteronormative’ oppression and cultural/societal/systemic dominance over millennia, as with all Marxist doctrines.
A ‘disruptive assault’ is currently underway and becoming normalised (ironically), whereby ‘adult-themed’ and explicit sex and gender training materials are introduced through schools/libraries/social media to foster, support and promote ‘sexual-self-awareness’ (generally) and ‘non-binary and queer sexuality’ (specifically) in minors, backed with the usual calls for compassion, nurturing and justice while railing against the bigoted, oppressive nature of dissenting parents and the ‘anti-queer’ et al.
One of the results of this are moves (documented and supported in the doctrine literature over decades) to redefine paedophiles as ‘minor-attracted persons’ whose predilections are argued not a mental aberration but a queer-category lifestyle choice. Such minor-attracted persons should (or so the argument goes) not be criminalised for their ‘sexual identity’ or suffer any form of punishment, ostracism or ‘conversion therapy’ (rehabilitation) which itself is a catch-all term with roots in religious ‘oppression’ aimed at ‘curing’ homosexuality, for example.
Minor-attracted persons (it is argued) should have the same freedoms (from oppression and bigotry and marginalisation etc) as any sexual/gender-preference minority identifying persons.
Further, in the absence of ‘childhood innocence’ there should be no limits to such things as the oppressive and arbitrary ‘age of consent’ for example. Abolition of the age of consent would, of course, remove the restrictions placed upon ‘minor-attracted persons’ in regards to practice.
This is not ‘fringe’ by the way. This move to categorise children as having an ‘identity without an essence’ and the ‘stigma suffered by minor-attracted persons’ has been an obsession (in the exclusively academic sense, at least until recently, where it is influential and creeping into the overt) of post-modernists since conception, with Foucault himself (a founder of post-modernism and a self-confessed ‘minor-attracted-person’ – in his case, towards young boys) declaring sexuality itself to be a wholly social construct (and thus merely the result of ‘oppression’) way back in 1976.
Anyway. Enough about critical queer theory. It’s an academic quagmire… and though a relatively recent trend in non-academic circles, culturally-pervasive. Queer theory itself is often philosophically-insightful but it is when deployed in a practical sense that it can become disturbing (which is, after all, the whole point… being subversive).
I should stress that many self-identifying ‘queer’ people don’t subscribe to this stuff. I’m not saying that ALL queer-identifying persons believe five-year-olds should be free to explore their own sexuality with paedophiles. Many black people don’t subscribe to tenets of critical race theory, either… but everyone should at least be aware of who they are associating with (in their shared identity-group) and what the ‘cult/thought-leaders’ believe, especially where they themselves identify as ‘queer’ or support BLM, for example.
Edit : I came across an excellent (and long) recent essay on this topic (cultural/societal normalisation of paedophilia) that can be found HERE. Heavily recommended reading.
[Interlude]
Here’s a clue to spotting some of this shit… and it’s difficult, at times, to separate reality from parody but let’s assume good faith from an advocate…
When an argument/theory or a person tells you that you need ‘special spectacles’ to see ‘the truth’… bingo. MarxyBullshitto-incoming.
Further, when you are told that to see the ‘truth’ you must look through the specs ‘correctly’ – MajorDomoBullshitto+11.
Even if you are racially black and therefore already in default possession of the ‘race specs,’ you must use them correctly (like only a ‘true black person’ (AKA someone that thinks rightly, like what me do) would, ofc)… to see/know/understand ‘the true truth’ about racism.
Special spectacles come in many styles… queer specs, female specs, feminist specs, anti-fascist specs, fat-specs, Islamic specs, transgender specs etc. Many come with an environmentally-friendly and rather helpful label with ‘Lived Experience’ printed on it. Nay sayers are, naturally seeking to ‘invalidate,’ dominate and oppress.
Special spectacles are the only way to understand… and only the owners of special specs (correctly-used, ofc) are allowed to understand or even pass comment.
Truth – and any ability to question or dissent – thus becomes the property of the ideology and the ideologue and can easily be reduced to fact/data/science/reality-busting anecdote, often passionately expressed with a hint of emotional manipulation aimed at silencing any dissent in a cloud of magic-dust and shame.
Restrict access. Control the narrative. Marxismly.
[End of Interlude]
When it comes to the core of critical race theory (as an example) a fair/objective definition would be something like ‘everything that we want to control is racist until we get to control it… (at which point we can be racist ourselves).
The same formula can be applied to every ‘critical [X] theory’ in the pantheon. Each is merely a means to control narrative in order to achieve power. A Marxist tenet.
If you can apply that definition to anything ‘social justicey’ then throw it into the ‘Marxist’ pile. And you can.
Everything that we want to control is oppressive until we control it. Everything that we want to control is inequitable until we control it. Everything that we want to control is an assault upon liberty and freedom and justice and human individuality until we control it. Etc ad nauseum.
Where’s all of this heading?
The end result of all of this obsession with ‘gender-expression’ (as an example) can clearly be foreseen… and as with the Late Roman Empire’s obsession with gender (androgyny and trans-sexuality) it is, for me (as it was to the Romans), a prophetic warning that the ‘obsessive decadence’ of a culture is galloping towards a catastrophic fall. Don’t misunderstand my use of the word ‘decadent’ here… I’m not using it judgmentally but in it’s ‘self-indulgent’ hue, referencing decay and decline… though perhaps with some sense of a self-centred waning of substantive morals.
At best… at the very best… we in the west are in the midst of a ‘cultural revolution’ in the pre-genocidal Mao Zedong sense. This IS an avowed and openly-stated aim of critical social justice movements and affiliates, whatever their [X] hue… (including BLM, and Stonewall) and it’s where the clear Marxist strings can be traced from thought-puppet to thought-master.
To be clear, the philosophical and academic utility of critical [X] theories often provide thought-provoking and insightful commentary on various aspects of the human condition. Yet all of this comes with an inherent, fatal and dangerous flaw; it is predicated on Marxism… and the oppressor/oppressed, victim/perpetrator narrative. It is this flaw that – in terms of practical deployment – negates any positive utility.
Despite denials, the deployment of critical [X] theory along with the underpinning Marxist philosophy and raison d’être is an aim of ‘the left’ generally-speaking, along with allied and established political parties across the west (US Democrats are a perfect example), world ‘think-tanks’ (such as the World Economic Forum), tech-monopolies (Google particularly though there are many), ‘influencers’ (across the left-dominated media and entertainment industries) and self-termed ‘elites’ from various cohorts of modern life; politics, business, religion, science and on and on.
Critical social justice is now dominant in academia, education, legal, health and infrastructure services, sport, Hollywood… and can be found rampant in political structures (including advocacy and activist movements) across the west.
I don’t see this as ‘communism’ in the old Stalinist mold… but it’s an evil (IMO) mash-up of Marxism and Maoism (and fascism – which have always been so similar as to be virtually-indistinguishable, in terms of means) with a definite ‘vision’ for future human society.
Many educators – professors and teachers – are no longer in the business of educating but in the business of converting students into social-justice ‘activists’ through ideological propaganda. This is denied, of course… and any such denial is a straight-up lie.
And here’s a snippet from a lesson plan that accepts critical race theory ‘facts’ as an unquestionable given…
I know how this sounds. Bear with.
When an ideology/narrative becomes weaponised… and indoctrination is rife… the route to prosecution and persecution in support of that ideology (such as critical social justice, or parent fascist/Marxist ideology, for example) leads inexorably to a ‘gulag’ of some kind.
But it always begins with some form of intimidation.
Under Mao, this included a categorisation-system based on ‘black’ and ‘red’ where the black list included anti-state rhetoric, capitalism, criticism of the party, land-ownership and the like, and where the red list included activism in support of the party, membership of party-approved identities (which included racial groupings), repetition of ‘right-think’ ideas and concepts and such.
Those on the red list (the good folk) were encouraged and supported to publicly intimidate and finger-pointingly berate those on the black list (the naughty folk) in an attempt to ‘foster compliance to the aims of a harmonious society.’ Those that failed to comply were determined to be ‘hardcore’ blacklisters and were (by turns) ostracised, refused access to services, community and even family, forced into starvation, and ultimately imprisoned and executed. Death. By the tens of millions during the ‘cultural revolution’ and ‘great leap forward’ in particular.
But this is clearly and unambiguously, a dictatorship. Mao, right? Obviously a dictator. Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot? Obviously dictators. Easily spotted, right? It’ll never happen here in the UK, right?
Maybe. Maybe not. Some of this is (at least) recognisable though, isn’t it? A weak and decadent Weimar Republic voted Hitler in.
But what about ‘critical [X] theorists?’ Their theories will never lead to actual death and genocide, right? Come on, get real.
I don’t know. Truly. And neither should you be so sure, should you think it unlikely.
Perhaps not in terms of physical corpses (at least initially), though it’s worth admitting and remembering that Mao (etc) began with ideas and that those ideas gained prominence and power well before the corpses swiftly started piling up.
But in terms of spiritual and mental death… absolutely. These theories will kill human freedoms, human creativity, human individuality and the human spirit. Guaranteed. History is replete with past examples. And it’s already happening. We’re surrounded by it.
There are multiple historical examples of this blacklist/redlist ‘route’ taken by a variety of ideologies, whether the ideology forms on the political left or the right. A hint that we are headed along this route is that the table is tilted too far… with our current, pervasive and often hysterical demonisation (exclusively) of ‘the right,’ for example.
But it’s not restricted to politics. This is a serpent with multiple right/wrong heads… one for gender, one for sexual-preference, one for race (etc, heck, even mask-wearing)… where the red-listed ‘queer’ is set in opposition to the black-listed ‘heteronormative.’ Where the red-listed ‘BIPOC’ is set in opposition to the black-listed ‘white’ (vaccinated/unvaccinated?)… I could go on. And on. Because this ideological methodology thoroughly pervades our current cultural climate. Marxist tenet. Again.
The intersectional indices of oppression that form the foundational core of critical [X] theory truly are a form of delusional mental gymnastics. Here’s Carol Adams (author of ‘The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory’ and ‘The Pornography of Meat’)…
Why anyone would credit such bilious nonsense is beyond me, let alone teach it… or pay someone to teach it.
When it comes to the divisive, toxic (hate that word) and hate-speech (ditto) tactics employed by critical [X] activists… how can any of this find support?
When someone points a finger at you, your response is often a rushyblushy self-awareness. The pointing draws attention… to you. The more eyes are drawn, the more uncomfortable your sensation. If the pointer then declares ‘bigot’ then many of those eyes become accusatory and judgmental and the situation becomes far more threatening… to you. There’s nothing pleasant about your sensations at this… point. Such a declaration prompts and requires a defence… from you. It’s an easy, old, old technique… a form of ‘othering’ that remains powerfully-deployed, especially in the virtual world. Most humans simply capitulate; often raising a finger themselves and joining the finger-pointers.
Strange, isn’t it… that those continually railing against being ‘othered’ are so swift to ‘other’ others.
Who wants to be called or thought of as being, a racist? Or a bigot? Or a homophobe? Or a sexist? Or a misogynist? Or an Islamophobe? It’s tough to stand up and declare an opposing view, or even a denial… or even remain sincerely neutral… especially when it’s deemed impossible anyway as ‘whiteness and privilege’ (or patriarchy, sexism, trans-hatred, misogyny etc) are ‘baked into the very fabric and systems’ of our country and have been throughout history (as we are told, as part of The Great Narrative), and where history itself is an oppressive construct of the white race (or men, whatever). Ye gods… it takes courage to dispute stuff like this (by plan and design, by the way, also).
Who dared stand up and declare Mao… or his ideology… even a tad slightly possibly perhaps mistaken?
We’re in the process of losing, or have lost, our true compassion/empathy for each other and any sense of a shared meaning and belonging. At least on ‘the left’ of the discourse (which, believe me, causes me much personal distress and depression). Finger-pointing is everywhere. Moves to promote racial diversity create racial division… inclusivity creates exclusivity and segregation… equity causes inequality and discrimination. Those swift to assert that they are disrespected, invalidated and oppressed are also those swift to disrespect, invalidate and oppress. Respect is most often disrespect. Tolerance is most often intolerant.
Definitions suffer redefinition until who the fuck knows what they currently mean.
And all of this (including control over language) is – of course – in the neo-Marxist, post-modernist, critical [X] theory playbook. Chapter and verse.
When it comes to the ‘goals’ of such critical theories and theorists, you may think I’m superlatively grandstanding or exaggerating or wilfully misunderstanding… but… I have read the literature (critically and objectively) and I try my best to keep the resultant knowledge pertinent and up-to-date.
So I find myself in well-trodden territory… proffering critique of the bible to believers that haven’t even read it.
Most ‘lay’ supporters of one or two or all ‘critical theories’ haven’t read Marx, Derrida, or Foucault, or Butler, or even Kendi or DiAngelo… let alone any dissenting author (which should absolutely be a requirement and not cause for ‘silencing’ or ‘vitriol’ or ‘cancellation’)… and certainly not with any sense of actual ‘critical thought.’
Rather, they’ve been understandably (from a psychological standpoint) swept up in a wave of compassion, empathy, and virtue because they’re truly loving people… or perhaps seek to appear as a truly loving person for a reason other than that they’re simply, truly, loving… or they are genuinely in fear of losing their status, livelihood or ability to merely study for a degree without censure, say.
Fear of ostracism, rejection or social exclusion is real; it’s why the proponents of critical [X] justice weaponise it so gleefully and without any sense of care or compassion… and it’s why the default posture for most of our western population presently is head down, don’t say anything.
As to the ultimate goal and consequence of all of this critical [X] social justice… I could quote goal/aim examples from queer theory, feminist theory, etc… (“to end fatphobia, we need to dismantle western civilisation”) but here’s one from a ‘respected’ proponent of critical race theory…
According to Ibram X. Kendi (one of the sainted gurus of ‘anti-racism’)…
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principles: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined).
It [the anti-racist amendment] would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
There you have it. From the mouth of a horse. Control. Power. Dictatorship. Marxism. This is not ‘in my imagination’ or some sort of ‘misinformation’ or ‘misunderstanding’ on my part nor is it some easily-dismissable ‘conspiracy theory.’ It’s also most certainly NOT about solving racial discrimination… in ANY sense… whatsoever.
The definitions of ‘racist ideas’ remain undefined, let alone the ‘threshold’ mentioned. Formally-trained by whom? No political appointees = unelected and unaccountable. Preclearing, monitoring, investigating, disciplining… this really is a totalitarian/authoritarian power grab by ideologues in the mold of Mao. Blatant.
Similar ‘solutions’ can be found across all of the ‘disciplines’ of ‘critical social justice.’ Tear it down. Dismantle. Deconstruct. Shred. Gut. Then rebuild in the Marxist mold with the [X] activists in charge. I kid you not.
What else is happening in tandem with this ‘cultural re-appraisal’ and ‘reckoning?’ How is this ‘cultural shift in social [x] justice’ related to the vision of western states/elites social-engineering projects and future societal vision?
How do these ‘elites’ see their vision coming to fruition?
With the imposition of ‘social credit’ systems in an hierarchy where those at the top (elite) dictate access (to services and ultimately to life itself) and weaponise ‘culture’ as a form of population control riddled with ‘right-think’ and fear. Who needs Stalin? Banks, schools, hospitals, infrastructure and internet services etc etc… will not be available as a ‘citizen right’ whether free or purchased with moolah. They will (arguably) only be accessible with a sufficient social-credit score (for example, or booster-status)… where rewards will be gained through ‘correct-think’ and ‘acquiescence.’
Such is the vision (image above) of The World Economic Forum (WEF) which recently hosted and lavished praise upon Xi Jinping and whose recent Dubai gathering was unironically titled ‘The Great Narrative,’ and of the IMF, UNESCO, Google, Meta (lol), the UN and many western governments currently exhorting the ‘build back better/levelling up’ mantra… all of whom are following WEF advice to ‘take advantage of the (opportunity gifted by the) covid pandemic to facilitate social change.’
Individuals, scientists… even epidemiologist professors at Boston University School of Public Health that have been busy over the past two years imparting Covid-19 advice… occasionally feel safe in declaring cultural [X] theory activist ideology coupled with WEF-compliant intent…
How might this intent materialise? Let’s have a guess with a nod to Orwell…
Citizens will continually be unable to keep pace with the hoop-jumping required of them as cultural ‘norms’ can be weaponised and altered at need… but their lives will be driven by a constant effort to comply… where non-compliance will result in social-credit downgrade and loss of access (to whatever). This state of affairs is already here.
China already officially operates this social-credit system [Link One] [Link Two], albeit in a currently limited manner as a ‘trial’ though involving millions.
The UK government openly utilises ‘nudge theorists’ (AKA the Behavioural Insights Team, now owned and operated by NESTA, ‘the UKs innovation agency for social good’) to assist in Covid policy (btw, “Nudge Theory is based upon the idea that by shaping the environment [of the narrative], also known as the choice architecture, one can influence the likelihood that one option is chosen over another by individuals. A key factor of Nudge Theory is the ability for an individual to maintain freedom of choice and to feel in control of the decisions they make”).
This unit have been behind a number of public campaigns in the UK, including this somewhat ethically-questionable Covid-19 compliance campaign…
And the UKHSA? Formed in April last year (without scrutiny or consultation), the UK Health Security Agency comprises the merged Public Health England, NHS Test and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity unit. Since formation, the UKHSA pushed for a variety of vaccine passports, biochip tracking and restrictions (based on social engineering studies) related to compliance with rapidly-changing state-mandated requirements, despite criticism from a swathe of health/security experts.
None of this ‘elite’ hooplah or critical [X] social justice promotes happiness. None of this promotes self-confidence or well-being… or the value of an individual. ‘Activists’ are most often envious, resentful, depressed, lonely, angry, or rarely see any point in existence beyond ‘the work’ (towards ‘social [X] justice). Dissatisfaction is rife. Medication rates are high. Suicide rates are climbing (particularly amongst young girls and the ‘non-normative’). None of this provides an answer or a solution because it approaches ‘the problem’ through an entirely Marxist/post-modern lens where – ultimately – the ONLY solution is the acquisition of power and the mandated application of right-think… and we know where that leads.
There is a route forward though. It’s not all doom and gloom. It’s easier to see through this effluent than you might think… because while it is all as wide and intimidating as a roiling ocean, it’s as shallow as a becalmed puddle. Truly.
Here’s a video-clip that (inadvertently) shows some hope…
To escape this dystopia, the dominant and devisive narratives of critical social justice must collapse and be rejected. This would require seismic shifts in the output of media/tech giants and corporations, a complete re-appraisal of academia and the education industry (and I mean thoroughly), and fearless (truthful) politicians (free from hypocrisy and with an honourable sense of ethics, morals and principles) enacting policies that promote civic harmony, cultural vibrancy, widespread health and prosperity, and our shared commonality.
We also need to once again shine our attention and problem-solving resources upon wealth-inequality as the most fertile ground in which to plant the true ‘social justice’ flag and thus solve as many social inequalities for every citizen as possible, as soon as possible. Making poor people richer is also the best, fastest and most feasible way to positively impact environmental (‘climate’) issues. It never ceases to amaze me how ‘activists’ fire off so many automatic rounds but never hit the target. Poverty… it’s the only game in town.
True ‘critical’ thought (as in the free and unfettered ability to analyse and criticise) needs to be vocally asserted and expressed without fear or reprisal.
We also need to stop wilfully destroying that which we do not understand, or that we believe we have no positive use for or have superceded.
G.K. Chesterton ‘The Thing’ …
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
Chesterton (above, in evil white male patriarchal oppression mode) had another go… in ‘Heretics’…
Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good…”
At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their un-mediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes.
So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.
True ‘activists’ seek improvement while protecting societies against tyranny, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, despotism; they are the resistance… and it is to the resistance that we should look for defence of liberty and freedom. Not the bloody Stasi.
CRT is bad enough… but CQT is more completely destructive.
We all need to wake up.
Because if we don’t collapse through internal rot… the Visigoths really are at the walls (or – as we’re being exhorted to believe – the borders of Ukraine) and they couldn’t give a hoot in hell about our sexual preference or skin-colour, and they can only be defended against by a strong, undivided community, with strong laws, bonds and common purpose, loving and respectful towards each other, who understand the value and history of the land in which they live and the heritage and freedoms fought-for and gifted by our ancestors… and who are willing to fight for and defend each other, irrespective of perceived difference, bias or prejudice… and who truly judge each other by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin – or any other immutable characteristic.
Which I guess, links back to an early rant about ‘Englishness.’ Somewhat.
Wow. So many words.
…all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
Yep. So stand up.
And if this scrawl by a mean, old, white man isn’t enough for you, here’s a piece by a cool, young, black woman… Africa Brooke.