The West is collapsing under the weight of authoritarian governments. These “representatives” are rapidly robbing the individual citizen of bodily autonomy, of freedom of movement, and of the ability to work, play and partake in society.

Under martial law, Australia and New Zealand have, in the course of the Covid pandemic, practically reverted to penal-colony status.

Working in tandem as a criminal syndicate, Canadian and American state and corporate entities have colluded to corner the individual, and compel him to offer up his life-blood to the Covid spike protein. That is if their Subject wants to … eat.

Covid vaccine mandates and passports. Lockdowns and quarantines. And racial subjugation to The Other, in the form of a Critical Race Theory that festoons state and civil society: Why have we rolled over? Is this white guilt? And does historical Christianity play a role?

Edward Gibbon would probably say yes.

Gibbon was the genius who wrote, in 1776, the 12 volumes that comprise “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” wherein he saddled nascent Christianity with the downfall of the Roman Empire, no less. (I read the 1943 version, which was “condensed for modern reading.”)

By so surmising, Gibbon brought upon himself the wrath of “bishops, deans and dons”—not to mention that of the great Dr. Samuel Johnson’s biographer, James Boswell. Boswell called Gibbon an “infidel wasp” for “the chapter in which he argued that the fall of Rome was hastened by the rise of Christianity.”

And indeed, Gibbon seems to point toward Christianity’s self-immolating, progressive, pathologically inclusive nature, remarking on the courting by early Christians of “criminals and women.” (Not my words.)

Even more infuriating to his detractors was Gibbon’s prodigious scholarship. “No one could disprove Gibbon’s basic facts,” opines American author Willson Whitman.

Whitman, who wrote the 1943 Foreword to the abridged version, comments on how “Gibbon outraged the Christians of his era by suggesting the ‘human’ reasons for the success of Christianity.”

“Among these reasons [Gibbon] noted that Christianity … attracted to its ‘common tables’ slaves, women, reformed criminals, and other persons of small importance [Whitman’s words, not mine]—in short that Christianity was a ‘people’s movement of low social origin, rising as the people rose.” (His words, not mine.)

To go by Gibbon, Christianity might be called the Social Justice movement of its day. (My words, this time.) Gibbon certainly seemed to suggest so.

In no way does Gibbon’s thesis—he “professed Church of England orthodoxy”—diminish Christianity’s centrality to Western civilization, its essential goodness and sublime glory, or its great heart in ameliorating suffering across the globe.

It does explain, however, why Christianity, whose missionary mandate is global, not parochial, fetishizes The Other and why the church rarely defends its own.

Or, why Christian religious leaders seldom stand-up for the right of native European populations to retain their countries (despite their “problems” in the procreational department, for Genesis 1:28 commands the faithful to pru urvu).

While Social Justice is a pillar and an imperative in the Hebrew Bible; it’s not a national suicide pact.

Deuteronomy, an early book, showcases an advanced concept of Jewish Social Justice, and is replete with instructions to protect the poor, the weak, the defenseless, the widows, the orphans, the aliens, even the animals (who, as enjoined in Deuteronomy 11:15, must be fed first).

This ethical monotheism, developed centuries before classical Greek philosophy, is echoed throughout the Hebrew Bible (Exodus), and is expounded upon by the classical prophets, who railed against power and cultural corruption so magnificently. The Ten Commandments, lest we forget, preceded the epistles of St. John.

However, there’s none of this turn-the-other-cheek, love-thy-enemy stuff in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism, in general. In the Tanach, there’s the imperative of justice. One of the oft-repeated phrases in the Hebrew Bible is, “Justice, and justice alone, you shall pursue.” (Deuteronomy 16: 18-20.)

Be just to your enemies, yes! But love them? Welcome them into your home? Let them walk all over you, outnumber you—even kill you when moved by The Prophet or by Critical Race Theory’s white-hot hatred of whites? Never!

In this, Israel’s much-despised ultra-orthodox rabbis are still hard-core Old Testament, steeped in a religious and cultural particularism, whose impetus it is to preserve the Jewish Nation.

Before Gibbon, it was Voltaire, French philosopher and writer extraordinaire, whose historical analysis led him to view Christianity as having had a softening effect on Rome, culminating in its yielding to the invading barbarians.

If Christians reject history’s lessons—and the imperative to harden The Faith—courtesy of Gibbon and Voltaire, perhaps they’ll heed the Hebrews who revived their fighting faith in their ancient homeland. As an Old Testament Hebrew who loves her Christian brothers and sisters, I pray for this with all my heart.

 ***

WATCH David Vance and ilana mercer flesh it out: Has The West Reached A Tipping Point, And If So Why?

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, October 21
Townhall.com, October 21
Unz Review, October 21
CNSNews.com,  October 22
The New American, October 22
American Greatness, October 23

The post For The West To Survive, Christians Must Toughen Up appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

For the purpose of making your way adaptively and smartly in a society that is systemically anti-white, you need to understand what distinguishes Critical Race Theory from Marxism and quit the socialism/Marxism theoretical escapism, for once and for all.

Get this into your head: For conflict in society, Marxism fingers social class; critical race theory saddles whites. That means you, if you are white!

“If anything, for its failure to finger whites for all the ills of society, Marxism is viewed as incompatible with Critical Race Theory by CRT’s leading sophisticates.” (See “A White-Out Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room,” May 27, 2021)

More on this do-or-die distinction in my latest YouTube video, “Distinguish Critical Race Theory From Marxism: Your Life Depends On It!”

David Vance and I further flesh out the Marxism vs. Critical Race Theory vexation in our weekly, Wednesday chat.

Whatever conservatives think of Marxism—and this writer follows the antiwar, anti-state, free market Austrian School of economics—Marxism in the origin is serious political economy; an intellectual treatise with gravitas. Critical Race Theory is a priori gibberish.

Scrap that: Befitting the boors who originated CRT anti-whitism—the theory is based on reasoning backwards: if B then A; if white then … complete that sentence with all manner of evil that comes to mind.

We also discuss uni-party politics, the futility of it, and the war on MAGA folks, all 74 million of us. And, prompted by David, I might have thrown in a quip about plagiarism made way back, in a witty joust between Oscar Wilde and James McNeill Whistler—two giants of the West your kids should know, but don’t, because … critical race rot.

Watch:

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, June 3
Unz Review, June 3
CNSNews.com, June 4

The post Conversation: Distinguish Critical Race Theory From Marxism: Your Life Depends On It! appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Prior to being shot in the head, this week, by four brothers in a melee at a wild party, Sasha Johnson, of the British chapter of Black Lives Matter, had big plans for whites.

Johnson had been “calling for a ‘racial offenders register’ that would see those guilty of ‘microaggressions’ banned from living in multicultural communities and prevented from working in certain industries.”

“If you live in a majority-colored neighborhood you shouldn’t reside there because you’re a risk to those people – just like if a sex offender lived next to a school he would be a risk to those children,” she fulminated.

Johnson’s call for a “racial offenders register” for whites is a perfectly pragmatic application of the Critical Race Theory rot.

And while Critical Race Theory (CRT) was made-in-America—it has, like many a destructive American creed, been energetically exported around the world. British agitators are certainly improving upon the plans hatched for whites by their brothers-in-arms stateside.

To wit, Johnson had once pinned a tweet to her profile which read, “The white man will not be our equal, but our slave. History is changing. No justice, no peace #BLM.”

Believe Johnson and her ilk, for they are dead serious—and deadly.

Stateside, there have been some gains in working to outlaw the CRT poison percolating throughout American schools. Tennessee has led the way. Other states have introduced measures to ban or curb anti-white propagandizing by the nation’s eager pedagogues.

Alas, the intellectual means of production remain firmly under the control of progressives. As part of the lucrative “racial-industrial-complex” (a Jack Kerwick coinage), Critical Race Theory enjoys muscular advocates.

Its adversaries, however, are weak and flaccid.

I’ve watched scores of noisemakers on Fox News “argue” against the Critical Race Theory agitprop in education. There’s nothing but humbug from the channel’s holy men and women. Their arguments against the CRT scourge are characterized by a white-out of whites.

Nobody will utter the words “anti-white,” or articulate the “anti-white” essence of Critical Race Theory. CRT is always euphemized as things other than a hatred of whites and a resolve to blacken them. Always.

Weatherize The Kids From … Anti-Whiteness

White kids are Critical Race Theory’s innocent targets in schools. Yet not one of the anointed critics of the critical-race bile has stated the obvious, and that is that, while white kids are brow-beaten; black and brown kids are buoyed by Critical Race Theory; they come up smelling like roses and, sometimes, punching like knock-out game champions.

Not one of Critical Race Theory’s conscientious objectors has said, “Whites. White kids”: The true victims of the critical race miseducation are white kids, as they are the sole repository of hate and aggression in this critical-race blitzkrieg.

Instead, it’s, “Critical Race Theory is bad for education. Our kids score last in the developed world. Kids are being reduced to their immutable characteristics. I lost a few IQ points listening to the drivel. Critical Race Theory violates the promise of America. It divides us. Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve opposed Critical Race Theory.” Blah. Blah.

During the 2020 collapse of the electrical grid in Texas, we spoke of a grid that had not been weatherized nor winterized in anticipation of a harsh winter.

Wake up. Weatherize your kids against this anti-white hatred.

Start with ending the socialism escapism, for once and for all. Quit intoning like automatons that Critical Race Theory is about socialism, or Marxism. CRT is about and against whites.

In particular, unlike Critical Race Theory, Marxism offers a class-based analysis—it fingers social class as the primary source of conflict in society.

CRT’s True Boogeyman, Not ‘Racism,’ But ‘White Supremacy’

Critical Race Theory, conversely, focuses exclusively on race as the source of all oppression. Not on any race, mind you, but on the white race, or on “white supremacy.”

Honest demons that they are, Critical Race Theory sophisticates generally reject the term racism in favor of “white supremacy as a conceptual framework for understanding race-based oppression,” as Charles W. Mills, a CRT “scholar,” readily concedes.

It is conservatives who cling to the comfortable “racism” generality to describe the thrust of Critical Race Theory. They’re the only dazed and confused sorts to bewail CRT’s un-American, diffuse, generic racism. (The folks at Prager U, for example.)

Strictly speaking, Critical Race Theory is not even traditionally racist; it’s exclusively anti-white. It is pro all races other than white.

Unlike their feeble conservative adversaries, critical race theorists admit as much. These odious individuals use “white supremacy” to describe white existence. Irrespective of lives well-lived, to the critical race critters, whites are on the wrong side of creation.

As opposed to Marxists, then, critical race theorists identify race, the white race specifically, as the “primary contradiction in society.”

It’s Dhimmitude, Dummy

Socialism is most certainly not central in the BLM list of values; socialism hardly rates a mention in the larger scheme of priming whites for dhimmitude—reeducating, intimidating and subjugating whites qua whites.

That truth, very plainly, is the albino elephant in the room.

Critical Race Theory’s central project is to make whites accept dhimmitude, not socialism. (If the practitioners of anti-whiteness, who already practice capitalism as consumers and producers in a market economy, were converted to theoretical capitalism—would their anti-whiteness dissipate? Naturally not.)

If you imagined dhimmitude means life as a second-class citizen—you were dead wrong.

“Dhimmitude,” according to Jihad Watch, “is the Islamic manifestation of the barbaric practice of extracting benefit or pleasure from someone whose life is already forfeit.”

Differently put, white lives matter less.

If anything, for its failure to finger whites for all the ills of society, Marxism is viewed as incompatible with Critical Race Theory by CRT’s leading sophisticates, as observed by a critic, Marxist scholar Mike Cole. (“Critical Race Theory and Education: A Marxist Response.”)

It’s as simple as all that: For conflict in society, Marxism fingers social class; critical race saddles whites. Deal with it! Denial is a deadly defense mechanism!

**

On video: A companion to the column is my YouTube discussion with David Vance: “Whiteout For Whites: The BLM Monomania.”

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, May 27
Townhall.com, May 28
American Greatness, May 29
Unz Review, May 27
CNSNews.com  May 28
Quarterly Review, May 29
American Renaissance, May 28

The post A White-Out Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Institutionalized, systemic anti-whiteness, yoked to white-hot hatred of whites:

That is the creed that is fast becoming entrenched across state and civil society in the United States.

Chiseled down, these are also the building blocks of critical race theory, a specious, subintelligent concoction, originated by subpar intellectuals.

The Critical Race project now pervades private and political life.

A further twist of the screw (or the shrew) was delivered recently by Vice President Kamala Harris, who insists on yammering about white America’s historic racism.

In practice, whites are being singled out for a punishing, institutionalized program of reeducation, subjugation and continued intimidation.

Dangerous in isolation, the entrenchment of anti-white animus is indisputable. It is made worse in combination with the conservative cognoscenti’s inability to come out with it. Too many conservatives euphemize our anti-white culture.

In particular, they will typically deflect from any anti-white outrage du jour by dubbing it identity politics: “Boohoo. Democrats are dividing us via identity politics.” This is an obfuscation.

Here’s why: Blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky. Hence, anti-white politics or animus. The multicultural multitudes are gunning for whites and their putative privilege.

The tarring of whites is now close to becoming a curricular requirement in education (primary, secondary, tertiary), and from entertainment to technology, anti-white racial “redress” is the all-important object of industry.

When they are not lamenting Democrat-driven, divisive “identity politics”; conservatives will wax fat about Marxism and communism. The anti-white theoretical kudzu enervating every aspect of life is, apparently, just a manifestation of the radical Left’s Marxism. Or, so you are told. This further downplays the anti-white project of the purveyors of Critical Race policy prescriptions.

Put it this way: If your first response to “Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer,” chanted by South Africa’s murderous Julius Malema, is, “Marxism, identity politics”—you are going to come short in the survival department.

Incitement To Kill In South Africa

In South Africa, inciters of black-on-white violence are known to rile the crowds with this anti-white chant. Born into “freedom,” after 1994, these haters can hardly read and write. Is a complex political theory, Marxism, then driving illiterates to slaughter whites in ways that beggar belief?

This is made-in-America suicidal nonsense on stilts!

American “analysts” have coated the sustained ethnocidal attacks ongoing against white South Africans with this more respectable intellectual patina.

The South African National Congress’s problem, however, is not communism; it’s white-hot hatred of whites.

This is not to say that endemic corruption, statism and state-capture by industry are not economic realities in South Africa. They are.

The definition of “state-capture” is “private actors subverting the state to steal public money.” In the U.S., private actors, Deep Tech, acting with state imprimatur, encroach on the rights of innocent civilians to make a living and partake in the national conversation. Potato, potahto.

In truth, the ANC guards the goose that lays the golden eggs. South Africa’s economy is not socialized, but is, rather, “based on private enterprise, [in which] the state participates” energetically. The economies of the West are at best “Third Way” systems, too, neither free nor entirely state-controlled.

As an organizing principle, however, South Africa’s political, economic and social institutions are firmly anti-white. They imperil whites as a principle.

Theoretical Escapism Retards Action

To sum, anti-white ideology is not to be conflated, as conservatives habitually do, with Marxist ideology. Very plainly, communism did not revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites. Stripped of bafflegab, this is critical race theory’s central project.

Confusing Americans about this anti-white atavism gripping the country does a disservice to the pigmentally cancelled—those affected. For clear language and clear thinking mediate adaptive actions.

Theoretical escapism retards adaptive action.

So, when conservatives insist that Critical-Race based politics in Congress and across corporate America are a manifestation of Marxism or identity politicking—it is more than a hollow exercise in intellectual casuistry: it prevents innocents, (the pigmentally cancelled) from acting adaptively to protect their lives, their futures and those of their progeny.

Crippled as they are by self-serving fear, conservatives have accepted the Left’s terms of debate. Those dictate that, to warn of systemic hatred against browns and blacks is racially virtuous; but to fear the same for whites is incorrigibly racist.

For fear of being dubbed racists, media conservatives simply look the other way, refusing to acknowledge the unadulterated, anti-white hue of American society.

Ditch the intellectual crutches. Concentrate on the crux. You are dealing with anti-whitism. Communism, Marxism and identity politics serve here as respectable intellectual crutches.

In using intellectual fig leaves to conceal anti-whitism, conservatives simply alight on similarities in the methods of current thugs and communism’s mass murderers. The anatomy of thuggery is always similar. The foot soldiers of communism, fascism and the American Left are alike because the methods of thugs are alike, not because Critical Race Theory policies and practices amount to communism.

Ultimately, if quibbling about communism and identity politics becomes an obstacle to facing the reality of systemic anti-whiteness—then these theoretical crutches are an affront to reality and, by default, a grave error.

***
These thoughts were echoed in brief during a segment on Newsmax TV’s Sovereign Nation, graciously hosted by Michelle Malkin.

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, May 6
American Greatness, May 11
Unz Review, May 6
CNSNews.com, May 7
Quarterly Review, May 10
American Renaissance, May 10

The post Earth To Conservatives: The Problem Is ‘Systemic Anti-Whiteness,’ Not Marxism, Not ID Politics appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Critical Race Theory is what Americans will be hearing day in and day out from a Kamala Harris Administration. You might as well familiarize yourselves with its fundamental, farcical pitfalls.

Watch these two explanatory videos.

“Racism Is A Thought ‘Crime.’ Thought Crimes Are The Prerogative Of A Free People“:

Critical Race Theory Rapes And Loots Reality:

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, November 6
Unz Review, November 6
Quarterly Review, November 9

The post Combating The K A M A L A Administration’s Critical Race Theory appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

How is it possible to debate Critical Race Theory yet fail to mention its salient characteristic—that it is exclusively and ethnocidally anti-white?

Easily, if one is a Beltway conservative. They complain a lot about Critical Race Theory, and construct elaborate theories around its crass cornerstone, yet seem constitutionally or congenitally incapable of calling it what it is: anti-white agitprop.

One Federalist piece, “Critical Race Theory Is A Classic Communist Divide-And-Conquer Tactic,” brings it back to communism. Quite how this adds up is unclear, but the author decries a way of thinking that exploits the amorphous “tragedy of racial divisions in America.” In essence, some bad people with a communistic manual and mindset aren’t interested in healing us. Boohoo.

Really? Did communism, an equal-opportunity oppressor, revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites?

Western democracies are third-way political and economic systems. They are already heavily socialized. Once Western societies go from third way to third world, debate over communism will cease, for communism will have arrived.

In other words, dissecting and decrying communism is an ideological luxury, the province of relatively wealthy, stable, developed democracies.

America is indeed racially divided. Blacks, for the most, hate whites for a variety of unjust reasons, not least the incessant, institutionalized propagandizing by other progressive whites. They want to hurt them and make them pay. For what? For everything; for whatever is wrong with their lives. Deal with this and reject it, Beltway boy. Communism is but an intellectual crutch.

By deferring to communism and ducking anti-white animus, the ever-quaking conservatives cloak themselves in the raiment of respectable argument.

Then there is that Uriah Heep like obsequiousness. Going by the aforementioned Federalist writer, conservatives refuse to even take credit for the “oppressive” culture for which Europeans are being berated. Ludicrously, they universalize the creed, the Protestant Ethic.

Recall the “Smithsonian display on whiteness” that condemned as “white” all elements of a civilized society, including politeness, hard work, self-reliance, logic, planning, delayed gratification, and family cohesion.

“None of those are ‘white’ values,” assures our Federalist apologist , as she criticizes Critical Race Theory for framing them as white.

Imagine being so obsequious and apologetic as to wash your hands of a really cool thing you invented, evolved or were born into: Western civilization.

Almost all these values are most pronounced in the European culture. One might even pin them down to Western Europe, because the sanctity of a man’s word, the handshake, culminating in the legally binding contract—these are some of the cultural and religious values that allowed capitalism to take off particularly well in the Anglosphere. Arguably, these are not part of the East European ethos.

Crypto-conservative Dave Rubin, of You Tube fame, also won’t say “anti-white.” Critical Race Theory is … wait for it, “racist.” Racist? Is Critical Race Theory anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Amerindian?

Even City Journal’s Christopher Rufo, a formidable warrior against institutionalized Critical Race Theory, still can’t bring himself to say it.

By Rufo’s definition, Critical Race Theory is “a radical ideology that advocates the overthrow of capitalism, meritocracy, and equal protection under the law.” Sure. But those base objectives are secondary to singling out whites for a punishing program of reeducation, subjugation and intimidation.

Douglas Murray is, indubitably, one of the more articulate, neoconservative second-handers, whose book, “The Strange Death of Europe,” cribs its title and theme from George Dangerfield’s 1935 “Strange Death of Liberal England.”

Across the pond, Murray finds himself wondering the streets of central London, only to be plunged into trammels of despair by “Black Lives Matter” imagery, projected over the city’s “vast screens.”

The “sinister rotation of images beaming out over London’s most famous junction” were “a horrible sight, not just for the threatening iconography, but for the profanity,” shudders Murray.

He describes the culturally atavistic attire and utterances to which we Americans have willingly habituated. Black Lives Matter imagery is, invariably, that of masked men, women and children all gesticulating and grunting in gangster grammar against “white people.”

For some reason, Murray’s Piccadilly Circus sojourn is conducive to a literary tangent, in which he shows himself to be deficient in the sourcing department.

Although Murray swanks, in his detour, about correctly attributing a quotation, he errs and must be corrected. Bear with me.

“If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” is not originally by civil rights activist John Lewis. Rather, it is a distorted riff of an ancient adage by the Jewish sage and scholar, Rabbi Hillel (“flourished 1st century B.C.–first quarter of the 1st century A.D.”):

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, then when?

Perhaps I, as a Jew, should call that “cultural expropriation” and plagiarism.

Back on terra firma, our English effete effectively describes the culturally alien hysterical apparitions that dog him across central London.

There is “a black man wrapped in chains with a manacle around his neck and a gas mask covering most of his face.” There are “crowds of frightened people, shouting, screaming, yelling, and crying” about democracy denied.

Exported from America, Black Lives Matter “iconography” is too horrible to behold. In Murray’s context, it constitutes a cultural colonization of London, that most English of cities.

When he comes up for air, however, Murray fizzles, meekly blaming …  the media for pushing a “narrative of disunity and dissent.”

All the current crop of conservatives can muster, seemingly, is to accuse Critical Race Theory peddlers within and without the hive media and academia of preventing multicultural America from having that big group hug we all crave and know we are capable of.

Denied, the systemic war on whites will not end well. Witness my homeland of South Africa. This, Andrew Breitbart of blessed memory understood. His warrior retort to the systemic, anti-white offensive was:

“Fuck you. … WAR.” (Watch.)

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, October 15
Townhall.com, October 16
Unz Review, October 15
Quarterly Review, October 18
American Renaissance, October 15
Newsroom For American And European Based Citizens, October 16

The post Wake Up. Systemic Anti-Whiteness Is Deadly. Witness South Africa appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Inciting racial hatred against whites is all in a day’s work on CNN. It devolves into a more festive affair when a celebrity like DL Hughley joins the network’s conga-line of cretins.

In a July segment, the comedian, author of Surrender, White People!, regaled those CNN viewers of a masochistic mindset, by comparing “racism” to COVID-19.

Whitey, belched Hughley—who used to be witty and is now a drag—can be an asymptomatic carrier of racism. Just because you haven’t done anything racist, doesn’t mean you aren’t racist.

Pay no attention to the COVID-race comparison. It’s the Left’s lowbrow idea of an intellectual quip. Be mindful, however, of the “guilty if you do, guilty if you don’t” pop-jurisprudence. Collectively convicting an entire racial group for metaphysical crimes is the cornerstone of the Critical Race Theory.

Flouting Western judicial philosophy, Critical Race Theory says you are a racist without having committed racism, which is like being a murderer, robber or rapist without having murdered, robbed or raped.

How does that jurisprudence strike you?

It strikes the reasonable, fair-minded member of society as “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

SYMBOLISM INSTEAD OF REALISM

Deconstructed, racism, as deployed by Critical Race racists, is purely a metaphysical affair. It doesn’t survive contact with reality, relying for its validation on a loose relationship with the real world.

You might say Critical Race Theory is anchored in symbolism and not realism.

Ditto Critical Race Feminism, a subspecies of Critical Race Theory, the symbolic nature of which I had traced in a 2001, Ottawa Citizen column:

Women’s studies courses and English departments have long been littered with [postmodernism’s] lumpen jargon. There, text is routinely deconstructed and shred. Subjected to this academic acid, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and T. S. Eliot are whittled down to no more than ruling-class oppressors, their artistry reduced to the bare bones of alleged power relationships in society. All this glumness is due to a theory, no more, and one based on a partial and insular view of history [and reality].

To properly place the oppressiveness of all critical theory in perspective, a young man followed-up that column by writing me a personalized tale of desperation. He had the misfortune of drawing a skyscraper in art class. His creation was alighted on by his professor-cum-oppressor and right away called out for being a phallic symbol, offensive to womenfolk, meant as a symbolic assertion of his dominance qua male.

Where is reality in all this white noise? Nowhere. This nonsense exists solely in the heads of demented distaff and their house-broken, white, liberal, male accomplices.

Symbolism, after all, is not reality. What you see in an ink-blot test is not real. It’s rarely even an approximation of reality. A Rorschach assay amounts to artistic license the tester takes with his subject’s reality.

THE LOOTER’S CRITICAL REALITY

As they are deployed today, the dreaded racism and sexism constructs are anchored in the notion that reality is determined by the allegedly pre-determined, power relationships in society.

Whites, in particular white men and the remnant of a civilization their forebears built, are invariably to blame. Blame for what, you ask? That’s easy: for everything.

A “fella” is laying waste to a little old lady’s bric-a-brac store in Kenosha, Wisconsin: Blame the melanin-deprived.

As that would suggest, any black man looting constitutes not a crime with real victims, but, rather, an acting out by the victimized, a reaction to historic “oppression”; a response to The Machine, in accordance with a theory that has been dreamed-up in the rarified atmosphere of the academy, and applied outside of it.

A theory, of course, any theory, is always an abstraction, removed from reality. A good theory cleaves to reality as much as possible, describing and presaging it. A bad theory superimposes a new reality on real events. Critical Race Theory does one worse: It rapes reality and loots it.

Another concrete case of the critical-race created tension between theory and reality unfolded on “Seattle Refined,” a Komo News television show.

The words “riots and protests,” asserted a local, privileged professor, are social constructs imposed by the power structure” on poor people of color.

Observe how for his “riots” our pedagogue claims the status of a “social construct,” a mere theory.

For poverty, by contrast, this African-American educator chose the status of reality.

Our teacher earns a fail on reality testing and reason. Both poverty and the George Floyd, Democrat/race riots of 2020, ongoing, are immutable realities. Poverty, black and white, and the race riots are manifestly real. Ontologically, these are irrefutable events and occurrences.

What a lie, then, and an affront to reality and reason is a theory of racism that opts to deny one incontestable reality—the riots—but admits of another—black (but not white) poverty.

To opportunistically privilege only a spectrum of reality, as Critical Race Theory does, is (I repeat) “less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.”

In all its impenetrable, piss-poor prose, Critical Race theorizing is best confined to the turgid minds of our affirmative-action driven universities. Alas, it has percolated from America’s tertiary institutions throughout the state and civil society. By now, the Critical Race rot is institutional; it is the handiwork of progressive—regressive, rather—parents, pedagogues and politicians.

Indeed, the youth rioting on our streets are not outsiders and interlopers; they are us. It is not insignificant that the whiter the city, the worse the riots have been. The protests that have engulfed more than 2,000 American cities have been the worst in “Minneapolis (64 percent white), Seattle (66 percent), Portland (77 percent), and Kenosha, Wisconsin (67 percent).”

With Critical Race Theory, a triumphant Left arbitrarily imposes meaning on the phenomenological world as a function of its will to power. It then bullies those who don’t go along.

The Right must reject this rot root and branch!

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, September 17
Townhall.com, September 17
American Greatness, September 21
Unz Review, September 17
Quarterly Review, September 20
Newsroom For American And European Based Citizens, September 19

YouTube version. Shorter and easier:

The post Critical Racist Theory Robs And Rapes Reality appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Critical Race Theory is the “remedial” lens through which America’s race reality is refracted.

Look hard enough and the need for this unintelligent theoretical concoction becomes abundantly clear:

It’s on the playground and in the classroom. Watch for the bossy white kids.

It’s in businesses and boardrooms, where microaggressions tumble from the mouths of their white mothers and fathers.

It’s in government departments, brought about by the few whites who haven’t been weeded out by quotas and set-asides for “oppressed” minorities.

There, this irredeemably uppity demographic persists in strutting its “oppressor stuff,”  emitting up to 15 “microinequities” per minute, by the estimation of the subintelligent social “science” of human-resource department sickos.

It’s in the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), wherein workshops on intersectionality only just keep the plague of white privilege at bay, among bureau agents who haven’t yet been deluged by Trump derangement syndrome.

Critical Race Theory, reports City Journal contributing editor Christopher Rufo, has even reached the battle field—on a mission of mercy.

Introducing the Critical Race Theory chimera to the U.S. military falls within the mission of this vast, global welfariate. The military must keep the enemy in good mirth during the COVID lockdown.

And, there is nothing that makes swarthy Jihadis laugh harder than the idea of white soldiers—a mere 55% of the force—walking meekly. The U.S. Military might no longer know Matthew 5:5, but to the enemy, they look like they know who’ll inherit the earth. “Ha, ha.”

This Cultural Marxism of a theory is an ill-founded, purely political, symbolic figment that appeals not to empirical evidence, reason and morality, but to the roiling, base emotions of rage and resentment against anyone with a white face.

Say it! A “white” face: The words media conservatives cannot bring themselves to utter.

Not even Rufo. The aforementioned path-blazing investigator into, and crusader against, Critical Race Theory in the U.S. concludes his inquiry thus:

“Let me say it plainly: critical race theory is a toxic, pseudoscientific, and racist ideology that is taking over our public institutions—and will be weaponized against the American people.” [Emphasis added]

Yet, the only Americans Critical Race Theory targets with ethnocidal animosity are white Americans.

That’s also the main reason white women like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black: In America, white is bad and black is beautiful.

Contra Tucker Carlson: More than they long to join the “booming racial grievance” industry—as a guest on the popular Fox News show contended—these pitiful poseurs want to be included in black supremacy’s mythology.

Like black Americans, these women simply want to be looked upon as carrying the heaviest historic baggage; nobler and more righteous than the rest.

The words “preordained and predetermined” are key to understanding Critical Race Theory, according to which power relationships in society are proscribed—and statically fixed for posterity.

Consequently, Critical Race Theory always inveighs against whites and for other, more exotic identities.

Over and above seeking to invert and eviscerate bourgeoisie morality—and instantiations of it like American suburbia—Critical Race Theory does away with reality.

For no matter how impoverished and drug-addicted white America becomes—never mind how often white men are passed over for promotions, opportunities, job placements and positions; no matter the white-hot hatred etched upon pale bodies by knockout gamers—Critical Race Theory has designated the country’s founding demographic as oppressive. Forever.

It’s as evil and atavistic as all that.

By all metrics, one of the most profound early warnings against such postmodernism was sounded by Pope (now Saint) John Paul II in his 1998 encyclical “Faith and Reason.” With unhectoring clarity, the Holy Father spoke, in a postmodern religious wilderness, against the errors of relativism in modern thought.

Who other than Pope John Paul, back then, had pointed to how “a legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism”? And who among men of cloth had the intellectual alacrity to forewarn that inherent in the error of relativism is a rejection of the search for truth, and, with it, reason?

If we accept that all positions are equal and no one position can be better than any other, we have forfeited our ability to discern, and forthwith our Judeo-Christian heritage, cautioned the pontiff.

Little did the pope know that one postmodern error—faith in a plurality of equally weighed truths—would spawn an even greater evil: Critical Race Theory, according to which there is only one immutable truth, and it is that white is evil incarnate.

Little did Pope John Paul II know that in the hands of the Church’s cherished masses, Critical Race Theory would become a political power tool to exact retribution—and worse—against the pigmentally challenged.

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, September 10
American Greatness, September 13
Unz Review, September 10 
Quarterly Review, September 13
American Renaissance, September 10
Newsroom For American And European Based Citizens, September 11

The post Ethnocidal ‘Critical Race Theory’ Is Upon Us Like White On Rice appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

The subterfuge that Tim Groseclose has stumbled upon was unnecessary until 1996, which was when Californians passed Proposition 209. Before Prop. 209, it was standard practice in the University of California’s sclerotic system to admit minorities with low scores while denying admission to whites and Asians with top grades and test scores.

“For several decades,” Mac Donald chronicled, “the university had divided its applicants into two categories: it admitted one half only by objective tests of academic merit, such as standardized test scores and honors classes; it evaluated the other half subjectively, weighing such factors as race, economic status, or leadership. From this tier, where racial preferences had free rein, the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics were drawn.” Consequently, “[t]he median SAT score of blacks and Hispanics in Berkeley’s liberal arts programs was 250 points lower (on a 1,600-point scale) than that of whites and Asians.”

Due to the high drop-out rate of affirmative-action admits—and to prevent further attrition—UCLA had created a bunch of BS majors. Examples are Critical Race Theory and Black Studies.

This racial spoils system is a testament to the tenacity of diversity devotees. Preachers and practitioners of “benevolent” discrimination have institutionalized this collectivist quota culture in the teeth of popular opposition and legal injunctions against such practices.

Fortunately, affirmative action has offended the sensibilities of one black American: Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute. The libertarian Connerly is the force behind the drive to rid America of the invidious “race preferences, set-asides, and quotas,” and the man who has placed the issue on the ballot in states such as Nebraska, Arizona, and Colorado. Connerly’s aim is to restore the primacy of individual merit to American institutions.

Or, as he told an unsympathetic correspondent for the PBS program NOW: “to do what’s best for the country.”

After Prop. 209 passed, the number of “underrepresented minorities” accepted at UCLA dropped by half. As is their wont, energetic ethnic advocates framed this retreat from equal bean-counting as a grave injustice. While the California courts, surprisingly, upheld Prop. 209, California’s byzantine college bureaucracy, and the UCLA scheming machine, worked overtime to thwart the popular will.

To increase the Lilliputian number of minorities, admission standards were thus lowered for all students. For example, the importance of LSAT scores was diminished in the admission to UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School. Similarly, students graduating with top marks from failing schools that award As for showing up were deemed as eligible—if not more so—than students graduating with honors from highly competitive secondary schools. In an attempt to net yet more minorities, “all students in the top 4 percent of their high school class, regardless of their standardized test scores,” in Mac Donald’s words, were accepted.

But UC Berkeley was not quick enough to adopt bush-college standards. The measures taken by California university campuses failed to yield the critical mass of minorities ethnic lobbies were clamoring for. So, Mac Donald reported, the university began ignoring all together “its applicants’ objective academic rankings”, and considering a “holistic” method of assessment. Academic scores are currently “contextualized”. To wit, an applicant with a lower SAT score who mentions having taken a bullet or quit a gang will be given preference over a high-scoring applicant burdened by a two-parent family.

Surprisingly, Groseclose, a scholar who has produced rigorous research on bias in the media, is said to favor the bias he uncovered at UCLA. Or, as he put it, “the idea of offering preferences to bring in more black students.” He just disapproves of the secretive nature of the selection process.

However, if a system that pays tribute to a type, not to the individual, doesn’t irk the good professor, one wonders why he went to all the trouble.

The accommodation of elites to racial preferences has been studied by Frederick R. Lynch, the author of Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action. When polled, corporate, political and academic elites mostly foreswear quotas/affirmative action. But they seldom resist its implementation.

Republicans, the consummate drag queens of politics (no offense to drag queens), are no different.

These days McCain, a Johnny-come-lately to conservatism, disavows affirmative action—sort of. But in 1998 he supported it.

And in 2003, the Bush administration filed a brief challenging racial preference in student admissions at the University of Michigan. The university was awarding candidates 20 points out of 150 for having the right complexion (non-white) and only 12 points for the right mind (a perfect SAT score).

Bush’s was a most unusual brief because, as it transpired, the administration’s challenge was a cover for the very system Professor Groseclose has exposed at UCLA. Race, the administration’s Solicitor General conceded, could be a factor in admissions under certain conditions. Racial cue cards in the form of “a statement people can make about whether they’ve overcome hardship” were quite kosher.

Barack Obama’s honest support for affirmative action may be more irritating. But is there really a dime’s worth of difference between the parties?

©2008 By ILANA MERCER
 VDARE.COM
 September 18

The post UCLA Bureaucrats Subvert Anti-Quota Law. But Where Is GOP? appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Dr. Veronica Dahl is a professor of computing science at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. While the estimable professor doubtless has considerable expertise in her field, computers were not the topic on which she expounded for the local Knowledge Network. In a taped interview some time back, Prof. Dahl offered that the reason boys were falling behind girls in the school system was that boys were lazy. They know they are the “ruling class,” she said in her deceptively dulcet lilt, and they know that no matter how badly they perform, their position in society is secure.

I followed up with a column in which I identified Dahl’s faux pas with second wave feminism, whereby women are seen as a besieged political class fighting to unseat the ruling class whose members refuse to let go of patriarchal privilege and power. Dahl and colleague, John Dewey Jones, director of the school of engineering science, protested to the editor that I had failed to divine the laudable context of Dahl’s message. Here is the gist of Prof. Jones’ rebuttal: Dahl didn’t say what Mercer alleged she said, but even though she didn’t say what she is alleged to have said, what Dahl didn’t say is accurate (see satire “Yes, Prime Minister”). Plainly, Dewey and Dahl deny the quote, but go on to reinforce its message, namely that girls work hard because of society’s expectations; boys often don’t because they dominate society. Voila, second-wave feminism!

Educators who should know something of the scientific method are advancing opinion guided not by data, but by ideology. Feminism and second wave feminism in particular is an ideology or theory, no more, no less, and a conspiracy theory at that, since it claims that throughout history men have conspired to dominate women.

The current predicament of men certainly contradicts this dogma. Women continue to live longer than men. Five times as many young men as women commit suicide. Men are twice as likely to be unemployed and find it twice as hard to get another job, and men are infinitely more likely to suffer industrial accidents and diseases which may destroy their lives. In addition to being less likely to graduate from high school and go on to college, boys are far more likely to be slapped with the diagnosis of learning disabled than girls and subjected to the Ritalin assault.

Judging from the letters I received from students at SFU, our devoted faculty are blithely unaware of—or heartless about—the experience many men have on campus. Wrote one student:

…I cannot seem to escape the biases of feminism no matter where I turn. Every female teacher somehow manages to bring the argument around to point out that males overrun everything. If I produce any artwork with any sort of tall thin form in it, I immediately am criticized for producing artwork that involves phallic symbolism. Thus meaning that I obviously am promoting male dominance in society.

The academe, once dedicated to freedom of expression and learning, now lets philistines hound males for producing personalized imagery, a reality the young man described as “wearing of his spirits.”

Indeed, radical feminism has engulfed universities, evidently not sparing the hard sciences. Women’s studies courses and English departments have long been littered with the ideology’s lumpen jargon. There, text is routinely deconstructed and shred. Subjected to this academic acid, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and T. S. Eliot are whittled down to no more than ruling class oppressors, their artistry reduced to the bare bones of alleged power relationships in society. All this glumness is due to a theory, no more, and one based on a partial and insular view of history, at that. Why then is radical feminism touted as immutable truth fit to guide public policy?

Up until the last stages of the industrial revolution, explains Barbara Amiel in her book “Confessions,” societies were preoccupied with the propagation of its members. The division of labour was the culmination of necessity and biology; it was necessary to make the most of man’s superior physical strength and woman’s ability to bear children. For a few children to have survived, explains Amiel, a woman had to give birth to ten or twelve. Were women not pregnant or in labour for most of their arduous lives, the tribe would not have lingered. Men, moreover, have an advantage in the perception of spatial-geometrical relationships. In earlier societies which relied on brute force and in particular on hunting for survival, this advantage was vital.

Feminism is staple doctrine in the secondary schools as well, and it animates the child-centered education system and the 1960s vision its teachers hold. My daughter’s schooling has for the most transmitted sentimentality over reason, attitude and mush over canon and curriculum. She has been forced-fed a pedagogic diet of pop psychology by female teachers who promote every mythical, politically correct orthodoxy that pervades the Zeitgeist.

With their lax standards and shopping mall assortment of flimsy courses, the child-centered, progressive public schools are bad for all children. While being intuitively girl friendly, they are, however, unmistakably boy unfriendly. Some research has indicated that boys thrive in a disciplined, structured, learning environment. The child-centered schooling shuns discipline and moral instruction, and promotes co-operative working habits and groupthink over individual achievement. Boys like competition and are biologically inclined towards it. But when they invariably bubble over with unbridled testosterone, rather than challenge, discipline, and harness their energies, they are all-too-often medicalized and made to conform to a feminized consensus about appropriate behavior. Over the decades, boy biopsychology has been demonized, and boys made over in the emotional image of woman, or at least in the image of the caricature-of-woman feminists promote.

While feminism has become a totem to behold, the biological differences that separate the sexes have become taboo to discuss. As Prof. Doreen Kimura, also of SFU has empirically demonstrated, there is “no evidence for systemic discrimination against women…and that when women do apply for science jobs they get preferential treatment.” Her findings, reported in the National Post, confirm that women “self select out of certain science careers.” Kimura also confirms that men and women differ cognitively in how they solve problems. As I’ve indicated, men, on average, are better at spatial tasks, mathematical reasoning and co-ordination of visual and motor activities. Given these findings, women would never be equally represented in professions such as physics and engineering.

After years of churning out dishonest science on the wage gap, Statistics Canada has finally admitted the pay gap is not due to discrimination, something the Fraser Institute demonstrated almost two decades back. The faulty premise held by public school educators like Dahl and Jones is equally hard to relinquish because it is politically expedient: The fight is on for power, not truth

(An aside: What do you think would have befallen Prof. Dahl had she ventured that the only reason women are underrepresented in the engineering sciences is because they are lazy and know a man will eventually take care of them? I wager the Prof.’s fitness to teach women would have been called into question.)

©2001 By Ilana Mercer

A version of this column appeared in the Ottawa Citizen

June 19

The post Little Man on Campus appeared first on ILANA MERCER.