Friday, October 14, 2022

The latest on All One in Christ

Here are the latest reviews of my book All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory.  Casey Chalk kindly reviews the book at The Spectator World.  From the review:

Feser’s short book contains several excellent chapters that define, dissect, and ultimately demolish CRT. Not for nothing does writer Ryan T. Anderson call it “the best book I’ve read on the topic.”…

I presume none of Feser’s CRT sparring partners will actually read this book – they have proved themselves so impervious to even the most charitable and tempered criticism that they seem a lost cause…

Perhaps, then, the best target audience for Feser’s pocket-size refutation of CRT are those who thought embracing it would place them in the “good guys” camp, but have begun to realize they were suckered them into a spiral of endless self-abasement.  There is no forgiveness or reconciliation in the anti-racist paradigm.  That would mean equity had been realized – an end-state anti-racists will never allow, because it would eliminate their (very lucrative) raison d’être.

End quote.  The Interim describes the book as “a brief but timely critique of Critical Race Theory that has taken hold of academia and is at the heart of the woke worldview.”  At The University Bookman, William Rooney says that “Feser shows that the Church has stood against racism from her inception to date,” and:

That understanding of the human person informed the Church’s condemnation of chattel slavery that arose with the discovery of the New World.  Feser cites an array of papal writings… that rejected slavery.

Moreover, writes Rooney, “Feser identifies a number of logical fallacies in the work of CRT authors” and:

In Feser’s analysis, Marxism, postmodernism, liberation theology, and CRT pivot on conflict, power, and domination among classes or racial groups.  The individual is marginalized, reconciliation is not possible, and division is necessary for victory.  The Catholic paradigm, in contrast, sees each human person as created in the image and likeness of God, as equally, individually, and uniquely sacred, and as called to love God and others with full mind and body through spiritual and corporal works of mercy.

End quote.  Recently I was interviewed about the book by Fr. Rob Jack on the radio program Driving Home the Faith.  Earlier interviews about the book can be found here.


  1. WCB

    Feser's book relies on guilt by association. Feser thinks if he can associate CRT unfairly with Marxism or Post-modernism, he can dismiss it all. I have posted here Christopher Rufo's gloating admission he has managed to make CRT intoo a conservative boogy man, a conservative dirty trick.

    This sort of conservative rat screwing is far worse than supposed post-modernism in Crt. It is in fact a form of pomo. Truth does not matter.


    1. You don't understand what a guilt by association fallacy is. That's not what is going on here. Guilt by association involves reasoning like:

      All A's have feature F
      All B's have feature F
      Therefore all B's are A's

      That's a fallacy, but I give no such argument. Rather, I point out that CRT has certain crucial features in common with Marxism (even if it is, of course, not the same as Marxism) and that the Church condemns those features in the case of Marxism. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, the condemnation would apply in the case of CRT too.

    2. I'm one of your big fans, Dr. Feser, ever since I converted to Catholicism in 2010 and asked a friend in a Catholic theology Ph.D. program, "can you recommend a good introduction to the thought of Aquinas?" Your latest on CRT is a great book and I was happy to review it for The Spectator!

    3. WCB,

      1. The Church condemns Marxism because it has Feature F.
      2. CRT has Feature F.
      3. The Church logically condemns CRT.

      That's Feser's argument in syllogistic form.

    4. If Feature F is bad in Marxism, and the church criticizes Marxism for having Feature F, then to be consistent the church should criticize CRT for having Feature F if it also has it.

      That is Feser's argument in the 5:04 post.

    5. WCB

      As Jacob Taubes at Opus Publicas has noted, Feser does not directly explain what exactly he means by Marxism in regards to CRT. I have noted here before Marxim has nothing to do with noting the history of racism in America in the academic setting of CRT. And that handwave arguments that do not demonstrate linkage or evil intent on part of Marxism is absent.

      Then there is another issue. If this was a Marxist enterprise to understand and fight systemic racism, why that is bad. And why American conservatives have chronically failed to take the problems of America's systemic racism seriously over the last few decades. One wishes Professor Feser would deal with that issue rather than yet more faux outrage loosed on America by Rufo, ALEC, The Manhatten Institute et al.

      Jacob Taube's two essays on the issue is worth reading.


    6. WCB,

      It's pretty clear what Feser means in regard to Marxism. Namely, it's the idea of class conflict or conceiving of society as a collection of irreconcilable classes of people that are intrinsically hostile to each other. Catholicism follows instead the idea of class collaboration aimed at the common good. And your second argument begs the question. If Feser is correct, then any benefit one can accrue from CRT's analysis will need to be balanced by acknowledging its rather substantial faults, not by ignoring them.

    7. WCB,

      It's an uncontroversial, well-acknowledged fact of intellectual history that "critical theory" is a tradition of thought that emerged out of Marxism and was pioneered by self-avowed Marxists. What else could CRT be invoking with "Critical" in the very name but that tradition?

      From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on "Critical Theory":

      "According to these theorists, a 'critical' theory may be distinguished from a 'traditional' theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human 'emancipation from slavery', acts as a 'liberating … influence', and works 'to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of' human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many 'critical theories in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies.

      ...While Critical Theory is often thought of narrowly as referring to the Frankfurt School that begins with Horkheimer and Adorno and stretches to Marcuse and Habermas, any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a 'critical theory,' including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism." (Bohman, 2021, paras. 1-2)

      That's what rightwing critics mean when they call CRT "Marxist":

      "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." ``-- Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

      But go ahead and project onto me and other conservatives that we have been hoodwinked by Fox News and Chris Rufo as you regurgitate the distortions and talking points from leftwing media and activists about this most pernicious of ideologies animating the contemporary left.

    8. It's not related to Marxism and vague guilt by association? Funny that when I was learning Marxist thought 15 or so years ago we were taught this racial framework, the treatment of prevailing liberal ideas of "colorblindness" as perpetuating ""structural racism", the irrelevance of intent to guilt, "privilege+power" analysis, the denial that minorities can meaningfully be racist or that they have any obligations to mutual cooperation in society etc. But alright, pop off I guess.

  2. WCB

    And there you go again. Marxism! Oh noes!
    What exactly do you mean, Marxist? Perhaps that old right winged bogaboo "class struggle". Marxism!

    So since the civil war, we had reconstruction, segregation, Jim Crow. Destruction of right to vot for blacks. Battling civil rights, seperate but equal (not really). Segregationist politicians.

    The class of white racists vs class of oppressed blacks. But no, we can debate what we mean by class, can we?

    You are playing word games with us. I am resolute, you are pig headed". I understand you. Really. Pure polemics. That has become right winged hysteria.


    1. "And there you go again. Right winged hysteria! Oh noes!
      What exactly do you mean, right-wing? Perhaps that old left winged bogaboo 'racism'. Right wing!"

      Etc. etc.

      See? Anyone can play your silly game, WCB.

      When you've got a serious response, I'll be happy to post it. But no more of this low-quality stuff, please.

    2. It would be interesting if WBC was actually commenting on anything Feser actually said, instead of just making up accusations. They aren't really even interesting ones, either. His stuff is a waste of space.

    3. WCB-CrRT

      Icase you missed it, I have in the recent past replied here to Pressor Feser's posts on CRT. Below, I have posted a quote from Christopher Rufo who created this right winged hoax. I posted that some time back. This is what Anti-CRT is really about. Inflammatory dog whistle racist politics. Created by Rufo, taken over to ALEC, unleashed on America by irresponsible conservatives. Google, Mediamatter, CRT to see how Fox News and other far right media fanned this Anti-CRT flames.

      The problem here is Feser does not understand that this is a right wing conspiracy game created for political consevatives with bad intent. Rufo did not hide, even gloated about that.

      This Rufo dirty trick is far more destructive than supposed Marxist CRT scholars, mostly mythical.


  3. One can only applaud any deconstruction of Critical Race Theory, one that defies the common sense of ideology-free people everywhere. It's believed only by brainwashed Europeans for some reason.

    It could be instructive to look at the approach to racial issues in a modern Catholic society, that of the Americas up to the 1820s. Differences were legally acknowledged in all their varieties, not merely in the Black/White/Red etc categories that have caused so many hangup in the US and exclude from European civilisation all those with a drop of non-European blood. Civilisation is what counts.In truth, Jesse Jackson is implacably part of US mainstream culture in a way Marco Rubio cannot be - no matter what either of them think!

  4. WCB

    So we had the mainstreaming of racist politics into mainstream Republican politics with Lee Atwater. Then the Southern Strategy of Kevin Phillips.

    Then we have Christopher Rufo's racist Anti -CRT conspiracy game. Rufo is a senior Fellow at the extreme righ Manhatten Institute. The Manhatten Institutes has lots of ads on various websites peddling their Anti-CRT garbage.

    And this was used as a basic conspiracy theory that was used by ALEC to peddle bad legislatured based on lies and nonsense.

    It is simply more Atwater style dog whistle racism.

    Christopher F. Rufo

    The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory."
    We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annexthe entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular
    with Americans.
    2:17 PM . March 17, 2021. Twitter

    Here at heart is what Anti-CRT is. A big, Lee Atwater racist dirty trick. And you don't seem to catch any of thiPhilosophy means love of wisdom. Maybe you should rethink what this is all about before writing any more on CRT.


    1. WCB I do agree with you here. After Lee Atwater was stricken with terminal brain cancer, he apologized to Michael Dukakis's wife for his comments about her depression.
      And yes, the Southern Strategy continues to work very well. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he said, "I've lost the South forever." He lost more than the Deep South.

    2. Wait, so a group of bloody-minded revolutionaries and terrorists invent a new "theory" to peddle their revolution in a garbage pretense of a reasoned basis, while intending really nothing but power grabs and destroying good wherever it lives,

      and whole hosts of people reject the theory AND the revolutionary goals, with varying good and poor reasons,

      and then a couple of kooks with decidedly bad morals decide that the ends justify the means, and use every dirty trick in the book to fight the crazy "theory",

      And this latter effort somehow taints ALL THE OTHER people resisting the crazy new theory for all the OTHER reasons that they have?

  5. I greatly admire what you have accomplished in this book, which is nothing more than the rational demolition, in relatively few pages, of the principle noxious and ill-founded assumptions and pronouncements of CRT. You must have a very strong stomach to have plowed through the writings of the principal “thinkers” of this ideological movement so as to critique them. That effort is in itself a supererogatory act. As an historian, I also very much appreciate your strong defense of the Church’s longstanding condemnation of slavery and racism.

  6. It saddens me to read how catholic thinkers, not most of them thank goodness, but many, have hitched their wagon to villainizing CRT in the misbegotten attempt of thinking that such a strategy will drag Catholic thought into the mainstream from the periphery, the nether regions of contemporary philosophy where it has gravitated in the last 50 years. I am saddened
    how Feser mischievously misrepresents the intellectual tenets and importance of CRT in the manner he likens it with Marxism, with all the pejorative connotations that such a bitter characterisation can muster among the ignoranti on this site. It does Catholicism no good service to wield it like a baseball bat that does nothing more than silence social, ethical and moral discussions of the reality of racism, institutionalised inequality before the law, social injustice and perpetuate a warped revisionist history of race in the United States.

    How proudly does Feser crow Casey Chalk's, "...Feser’s short book contains several excellent chapters that define, dissect, and ultimately demolish CRT."

    No it doesn't. The only thing that Feser 'ultimately demolishes' is a caricature of CRT.
    I have to say, it is an ugly perspective that explains nothing and sheds no light on how in today's community can we redress the unforgivable trespasses and right the wrongs of our past. We can only do that if we recognise, acknowledge and accept our past misdeeds.
    Without that, there will be no "...spiritual and corporal works of mercy."

    1. Dear Papalinton

      I would earnestly like to know what you understand by CRT and what do you understand by it's importance and intellectual tenets. Personally I find no intellectual merit neither any importance in it whatsoever but I am curious and open as to what do you understand by it before I tell you why I think about it the way I do.

    2. Your flowery CRT expositions always seem to say the same things, George-m. It's a bit lightweight. Try Jean Stefancic's CRT, An Introduction, or Ibram X. Kendi's How to be an Antiracist. Would liven up your discussions. Take heart!

    3. Miguel Cervantes, you fail to even imagine that I might have actually read Kendi's and Stefancic's contributions.
      Please, don't stick your presumptive ignorance in the middle of your forehead.

    4. @Miguel

      So he has advocated for CRT in this space before ?

    5. in the misbegotten attempt of thinking that such a strategy will drag Catholic thought into the mainstream from the periphery,

      That's just plain goofy, stupid nonsense. It is the norm in polite conversation to attribute to an author, (or to a speaker) motives that are credible and reasonable, if any are plausibly available (and if the author doesn't explicitly say otherwise, that is). Charging Feser with this as his motive is just plain idiotic.

      If Feser has not credibly identified the real Catholic response to CRT, then his attack on CRT cannot be identified with "Catholicism" anyway. If, however, Feser has credibly identified the real Catholic response to CRT, then he won't be dragging Catholic thought anywhere, mainstream or not.

      Moreover, Feser is well aware that real Catholic principles and thinking have been rejected by the mainstream in the West for decades now, and nothing he does is likely to affect the "mainstream" anyway.

      But much more importantly, some philosophers, like Feser, feel it worthwhile to state what they consider to be the truth whether it sways ANYBODY or not: merely testifying to the Truth is a right Christian act. It's motivation is not a power-grab or a "trick" to manipulate others into feeding their own wills. (And it takes one sunk in the abyss of "critical" thinking to imagine everyone's motivation IS power-politics of some form or other.)

    6. Don't remember? More fish in the diet perhaps. I usually remember what I write. The stuff on CTR definitely needs supporting with more reading to look challenging. Ciao.

  7. Why do you care if people oppose CRT? It's a narrative, not a truth. No one is duty bound to accept a particular narrative.

    1. WCB

      This anti-CRT manufactored outrage campign has resulted in waves of very bad laws being enacted across the U.S. by right winger politicians. It matters. It matters rather a lot.


  8. Where Papalinton jumps in with his farcical, useless, commentary, we know that self referencing and humorless revolutionaries have been stung once again.

    Good stinging then, Professor Feser!

    Papalinton makes a good impactometer. Ed, you have obviously done well.

    This kind of work from you that sparks such ridiculous words (include those of 'WCB') is to we who consume it with relish, beyond fun to see.


    Tom Cohoe

  9. Funny how I see more people attack Feser for his supposed strawmanning of CRT, saying that he's just bringing up a right-wing boogeyman, etc. without addressing his arguments or even defending it.

  10. Suck up all the words you want, when you can, while you can, Tom Cohoe. Because, as history is demonstrably informing us the hegemony of Catholic thought will continue to downsize in the public square due to its ever-decreasing significance and relevance in addressing the existential challenges in contemporary society. People are shedding the skin of catholic thought, not because it is wrong, but because it does not represent a comprehensive, let alone a universally acknowledged course in navigating the complex nature of modern life and its eclectic demands. It's a wishful throw-back to the 'good-old' days, to simpler times.

    All of Feser's bogeymen, the most feared catholic demons are there: Marxism, postmodernism, liberation theology, and CRT. And Feser's manufactured rendition of CRT is intellectually and philosophically mistaken. Just as the extremely lucky that have had the good fortune of overcoming the psychological ravages and effects of Stockholm syndrome can attest, how easy it is for Catholics on this site to play the 'victimhood' card, that white people are being. "... suckered into a spiral of endless self-abasement". While-ever proponents such as Dr Feser deliberately choose to link Catholic thought as synonymous to the wholesale debasement of CRT going forward, my work is easy. I have no need to effect anything that isn't already the ineluctable result of the shrivelling of catholic thought. The seeds of its own destruction are deeply embedded within its own character.
    It is egregiously misplaced for Dr Feser to argue from a perspective that is entirely unfounded. CRT does not, I repeat, does not teach that any race is inherently racist or superior, but it does teach how race is deeply ingrained in our history. The dozen or so States that have legislated against the 'teaching of CRT' in schools, banning books and curricular material across the country is the stuff of authoritarianism, not of democracies. It is nothing less than a cynical and forlorn attempt not only at erasing a somewhat sorry chapter in human relations but equally, the wholesale whitewashing of American history.
    Nothing good will come of Dr Feser's approach. An entrenched position does not a discourse make.
    And this is sad.

    1. As above, Jorge. Have a good read of Ibram Kendi, then get back to us. There seem to be shortcomings in your reading-up on CTR - have you been perusing the papers at least? Your acquaintance with Zhu Xi on the other thread seemed more pressing, though you did promise to get back with more info for us. It would have been of more interest. CTR does not seem to be worth your belabouring Dr. Feser with misapplications of ideology. Cheer up. There are other things than CTR.

    2. Good grief, if you think that the staleness of an idea is what invalidates it, nothing is perhaps more tired than this triumphalist progressive narrative ("Progress is inevitable."). It never tackles the reason why Catholicism (and especially traditional Catholicism) attracts so many young people - namely, they see the inevitable direction the status quo is taking us, and they don't like it. Even if you're right about the future of Catholicism, all you are doing is talking down to people who have an alternative to the horrible future they see ahead of us. But what do you propose in its place? Nothing. You have a view from nowhere, a worldview without accountability.

      I've seen you criticize Catholicism and conservatism as in "inevitable decline." How about you come up with a different tactic? Because this whole attitude doesn't work unless you think the kind of future depicted in Star Trek is just around the corner. People are trying to escape the machine. Do you want them to?

      I mean, who knows? Maybe you're just a bot. You certainly write like one.

    3. @papalinton

      As far as I have read what is banned in schools is only the teaching of nonsensical notions of whiteness or micro aggressions, it does not ban the teaching of facts that there are racists or white supremacists. But it does bar making white students apologise to black students for transgressions of the past or teaching that the white people of today have innate racism of which they don't know about. This is literally what is being taught in schools, muti national corporations etc. And it's not just white people, any group that has a had any measure of success in the system namely Asians, has been accused of pandering to the so called White Supremacists. If people are banning CRT at the college level is wrong but at the school level, there is really no need to teach children that America's social and economic structures are supposedly inherently designed to prevent the success of minorities. There may be particular people in the system who are acting in a racist way, that's not s failure of the system, rather it's a failure of the people to abide by the system. People are flawed and every once in a while you can encounter a racist jerk but it's inevitable, there's a limit to which you can fine tune recruitment so as to get the ideal employee. And if a liberal like Bill Maher has a problem with what happens in schools regarding white students being told that they owe something to black students then you know that there is a problem.

      In my opinion white privilege does exist, but in a very qualified way namely "white privileged liberals".

      One has to look no further then the current president of the United States Joe Biden who literally told a black man that if he doesn't vote for him, "he ain't black". Could anyone have ever imagined that, A white man telling a black man that he is not black if he doesn't vote a certain way. Race has literally been reduced to nothing but an idea, a certain way of voting or behaving. Like it or not, Joe Biden spoke for the entire democratic party and liberal base when he said those words. It's a culmination of hiw degenerate the discourse has become, subordinate or you lose what you are, including your race.

    4. @ Papalinton,

      "Suck up all the words you want, when you can, while you can, Tom Cohoe"

      Do something worthwhile Papalinton instead of pretending. There is some worth amusing people to be sure but your audience on this site is relatively small and the ones you seem to want to affect are not going to be much affected when all you do is make us laugh.

      Go for the big times and make a fortune with your trash comedy, pretending anti-Catholic bigotry!

      Your very good and well wishing buddy,

      Tom Cohoe

  11. "This is sad."
    No "this" is not sad. It is you who is sad, AND
    pathetic, Papalinton

  12. People who promote racist obsession are all of them the enemies of human advancement, peace and cooperation. For one, American laws are not racist. They are anti-poor, which is very different. They have been that way since King Henry VIII. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to end racist laws.

    One of the diseases infecting America and the West is the consequence of allowing actually racist states like China and Israel into our politics. Until we either excommunicate them for barbarism or enforce on them like we did the South equality under the law the polarization of our politics and the pseudo-intellectual race bating will continue and intensify.

  13. WCB

    To give Pope Francis credit, he has spoken out forcefully against racism, climate change denialism, rampant economic inequality, and far right populaism and far right politics such Francis denounced while in France.

    This anti-CRT hysteria is far right political dirty trickery as the quote I posted from Christopher Rufo openly admits. The whole point of it all is to manipulate people. To make it much harder to battle systematic racism in America?

    I am sure with the record of Pope Francis so far, if he was aprised of the intent of anti-CRT, Pope Francis would have stern things to say about this.

    It is simply more of the long history in America of conservatives weaponizing dog whistle racist politics.

    Lee Atwater's ugly interview where he admited the change from open race baiting politics to dog whistle politics is the beating heart of Rufoism, CRT hysteria. I was not allowed to post the ugly little quote from Atwater here. So people interested in that will have to google for it themselves.

    We have seen in recent years, the rise of racism in America. Virulient anti-Semitism, physical attacks on Asians,protesters marching wavin Nazi flags, and racist filth pouring out of Fox News and similar right wing media.

    Decrying the fact that Whites are beginning to no longer be the majority in America.

    Racist fear mongering. CRT is not the problem. The rise in virulient racism in America is. Rufo's dirty trick anti-CRT campaign is meant to make it much harder to battle this rise in political racism.


    1. "Decrying the fact that Whites are beginning to no longer be the majority in America"

      I honestly haven't seen any serious conservative thinker (And I don't include the reactionary commentary of people like those at the daily wire) who has ever decried that white people are no longer going to be the majority in America.

      Most sane conservative commentators decry both the excesses of the far right and the far left.

      To quote a piece from one of the best natural law theorists alive on the planet today Prof J Budziszewski

      "Progressives like to say that a racist doctrine they call “replacement theory” is very big on the right.

      I won’t say there is no such theory. There is. Actually, though, versions of the theory are held both on the farthest, farthest fringes of the right and – more quietly – among large, large sections of the left.

      The right wing version is that immigrants, especially immigrants of color, outbreed people who were born in the country, so that descendants of the former will “replace” descendants of the latter. This is supposed to be bad.

      The left wing version is that immigrants, especially immigrants of color, trend more to the left than people who were born in the country, so that leftists will “replace” conservatives. This is supposed to be good.

      Both versions of the theory are nuts.

      As to the former version: If the country becomes browner in a few generations, so be it. People who are too selfish to have children deserve to be “replaced” by people who love them.

      As to the latter version: Immigrants who are acquainted with the politics of the country are often quite conservative; they don’t want to lose what they’ve worked and suffered to attain. So if left-wingers think immigration will lead to the “replacement” of conservatives by liberals, they may have it backwards."

      End quote

      As you can see most sane right wingers don't really care if whites are a majority or not. It's not something that's bad in the first place if they lose their majority because if they aren't reproducing they deserve it.

      Link to the quoted blog post

  14. One has to wonder what a person like Papalinton gets out of being our Cassandra. Since he or she is so convinced that Dr. Feser's arguments are not only wrong, but so categorically wrong that a Hegelian force of history will compel them to be rejected to ever greater degrees, what is the point of his or her comments?

    He or she has never made an actual argument in refutation of any of the ideas, cited no sources to substantiate his or her claims. All we hear from him or her is the assertion that out ideas have been soundly rejected, and we are to take the authority of one of Dr. Feser's commenters over Dr. Feser himself on his own blog.

    1. WCB

      Critiques of Feser. Try here.


    2. A Cassandra? Heavens no! Just a person that reads widely, takes the pulse that underlies contemporary thinking on a range of social matters and offers a measured response to the somewhat reactionary nonsense that masquerades as a philosophical critique, in this case, of CRT, the most recent addition to the list of conservative bogeymen.

    3. @Papalinton you're lacking in self-awareness and introspection (this isn't your fault: the Libet experiments shows that people in general are bad at introspection)... but your responses are not "measured." They're extremely unhinged.

  15. WCB

    Fratelli Tutti
    Encyclical of Pope Francis
    September 5, 2020

    "Concern about this led me to offer the young some advice. “If someone tells young people to ignore their history, to reject the experiences of their elders, to look down on the past and to look forward to a future that he himself holds out, doesn’t it then become easy to draw them along so that they only do what he tells them? He needs the young to be shallow, uprooted and distrustful, so that they can trust only in his promises and act according to his plans. That is how various ideologies operate: they destroy (or deconstruct) all differences so that they can reign unopposed. "

    Here is what Rufo's dirty trick anti-CRT hoax is about. Using this to cripple history teaching about slavery and racism in schools. To cripple teaching about the problems of racism in civic classes. Yes, we must not upset our white snow flake children with unpleasant facts of American history. Down the memory hole with all of that. Making it harder to fight American systematic racism we still face.

    Pope Francis nailed it here.


    1. Yes, we must not upset our white snow flake children with unpleasant facts of American history.

      What the heck are you talking about? Way, way more time is spent, in some schools, on the wrongs of racism and racist behaviors / policies of the past, and the evils imposed by whites, (and imagined racist "structures" in the present), than in protecting whites from anything. Even in my own childhood, decades ago, there was plenty of stiff teaching about the evil practices of slavery, and similar recounting of the evils of Jim Crow segretation.

      You are just inventing this stuff out of some imagined capacity of a few outspoken anti-CRT polemicists to actually AFFECT changes in schools. In reality, the public schools are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the liberal left, and the majority of the Catholic schools are only slightly less so.

    2. Tony: "What the heck are you talking about? Way, way more time is spent, in some schools, on the wrongs of racism and racist behaviors / policies of the past, and the evils imposed by whites, (and imagined racist "structures" in the present), than in protecting whites from anything. Even in my own childhood, decades ago, there was plenty of stiff teaching about the evil practices of slavery, and similar recounting of the evils of Jim Crow segretation (sic)."

      Tony, you. just. don't. get. it.
      Your eyes I presume are open, but. you. do. not. see. Not being able to see through to the inequities in law, in the courts, inequality in policy, in voting legislation, experienced in neighbourhoods all about us that occur every day is akin to self-induced psychological saccadic suppression, a temporal illusion that black and brown people in society are not victims of systemic institutional bias or abuse. The wide swathe of American history puts a lie to whatever your belief system might be. It is little different to the form of denialism that Turkey practices today on their treatment of Armenians during the First World War, or Japan's denial of Korean women forced into systemic sexual slavery during WW2. While each including your form of colour-blindness are indeed very different circumstances, the effect is the same, a denial to self that there is no there there.
      We seem to not want to learn the lessons history teaches us or shelve because of the degree of mental discomfort we are not willing to face. We pretend it is not happening now, despite insuperable evidence.

    3. No, Paps, you. just. don't. get. it.

      I HAVE SEEN it. I have seen the systemic effects of the treatment delivered to blacks.

      In other places and times, similar evil treatment was given to those of other ilk: the Egyptians treated the Hebrews so, the Hebrews treated the Canaanites so, the Phoenicians treated scads of other peoples (at the time, called "other races") so, the Persians treated a dozen subjugated peoples so, the Chinese, and the Japanese, all did similar things. The Normans did it to the Saxons, and the Huns did it to the many peoples that moved into Europe before them. Cruelty, on a systemic basis over MANY generations, is not a new invention of the American, nor the western European peoples. Cruelty founded - at least in part - on a totally superficial meaning of "us" versus "them", whether it was skin color or any of 10 other traits, it didn't matter.

      It's that I draw different conclusions ABOUT the facts of the systemic treatment than you do.

    4. Tony: "It's that I draw different conclusions ABOUT the facts of the systemic treatment than you do."

      Yes, everything you say happened. The dominant Egyptian culture abused the Hebrews; the dominant Hebrews abused the Canaanites; the dominant Japanese abused the Korean 'comfort women' during WW2, just as the dominant god-believing Caucasian (White) race abused black and brown people through the massed shipment of institutionally-sanctioned slavery to the United States.
      Yes, Tony, you have drawn a different conclusion from the evidence. But it is a misconstrued conclusion. While there have been laudable advances in ridding slavery after the Civil War, the terrible effects have persisted to this day. Just review the sorry history of the Jim Crow era, the Ku Klux Klan, the 'Red Summer', the 1921 Tulsa race massacre, the Race Riots of the 60s through to the continuation of the 'Proud Boys' and other groups that have fueled the rise of White Nationalism and hate crimes that have targeted minorities, even your President Trump.

      And if, as you say, you have drawn a different conclusion from the facts, then it is a conclusion not from the view of the minority groups in your community but from the white dominant Caucasian perspective that seeks to react against minorities, against BLM, against CRT, without any thought to acknowledging let alone addressing the deep underlying structural problems embedded in American society and body politic.

      And still, you seem either not to have learned the lessons of history or are inured to them. Your different conclusion signals a form of indifference to the issues.

    5. But you don't even know WHAT conclusions I have drawn, because I haven't said. You are just assuming. You just prove over and over that, as well READ as you may be, your comments are trite garbage. Go away already.

    6. @ Papalinton,

      "Your different conclusion signals a form of indifference to the issues"

      I imagine you continue your deep research on how the world corresponds with a fractal?

      Hee hee!

      But you know it doesn't work, so you have to come to the Church, in which God unifies all with no parameters at all!

      My you got mad at me, as if I had somehow tricked you by showing you this simplest structure.

      Your angry response was excellent performance art. Your latest piece of seeming self-important circularity is somewhat dull by comparison.


      Buck up, my friend, you would do better to abandon the revolutionary comic and get away from skin color.

      May God enlighten your path.

      Tom Cohoe

  16. Critical race theory is based on the false assumption the differential outcomes are due to systemic racism and injustice. It follows organically from that premise.

    1. It's so sad that you're so lacking in personal merits that you're resorting to your race in order to get a sense of self-worth. Like the chicken that boasts his ancestors were mighty dinosaurs.

    2. What is sad is that you have no response to Terliien’s argument, so you go straight to personal abuse. Do you even have information about Terilien’s race? No, but you assume Terilien is white because you’re a bigot and project your bigotry onto others.

    3. @Terilien

      That just is Thomas Sowell criticism of some of the left, no? From what i remember he also argued that white supremacists claims of certain races supposed inferiority used a similar assumption.

    4. @Tom Simon Respected authority figures taught me that argument, so no, I don't think it constitutes personal abuse.

  17. I like this! Fully agree!