# Second Response on Critical Theory

This post is in response to Michael's [Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism](https://hackmd.io/@sproul/critical-theory-and-cultural-marxism).

First off I want to say thank you for taking hours of your time to read my post and respond to me. You didn't have to do any of that, and I appreciate you doing it. I'm interested in continuing this conversation if you are. Taking the time to write this out and bounce ideas off of someone who disagrees helps me clarify my thoughts. Also, I didn't ever really expect to change your mind either, but I **do** think it's possible to find common ground, which I think is valuable. Either way, I also took an enormous amount of time to write this. The majority of the time (and length) of this response goes to just providing evidence for what I am saying. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, though maybe it'd be faster/easier, at some point, to simply have a conversation rather than typing it out.

## A Clarification to my Initial Response

You wrote in your response:

> What I take issue with is the idea that these Marxists are treated as a kind of bogeyman (“Marxism = evil”), and that their existence justifies right-wing opposition to any and all progressive policies, even non-Marxist ones.
> ...
> By extending the realm of ideas considered Marxist to anything that could have been influenced by Marxism, you create an ideological dragnet that’s going to sweep up almost all lefty ideas.
> ...
> It seems that in practice conservatives are willing to identify wokeness in anything...
> ...
> By shooting down “woke” ideas, the right stymie not just a Marxist revolution that was never going to happen, but also any and all reformist change.

I'm not advocating dismissing "any and all lefty ideas" or shooting down "any and all reformist change". Nor am I advocating that you give the right a blank check to do that. I'm actually attempting to draw a clear distinction between "liberal" lefty ideas (for lack of a better term) which I do not oppose, and woke/Critical Marxist ideas. This is why I tried to give a very clear definition of woke in my previous response. I really do not like when that term is used where it doesn't apply.

To explain this further, I need to explain two mechanics of *how* Marxist ideas infiltrate broader left-wing thought and institutions:

1. The abuse of language and definitions

If you spend some time diving into Marxist ideology, you'll find that Marxists do not use words as they are normally defined in common parlance. You can start to see this by looking at the number of entries in the [glossary of terms on marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm). I'll give specific examples of words that are abused this way later in this response.

2. [Motte and Bailey Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)

This is self explanatory from the first sentence of that wikipedia page:

> The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.

You see this **constantly** when Critical Marxists face criticism of their ideology and this is often facilitated by the abuse of language and definitions. This serves to camouflage their much more extreme ideas as liberal ideas.

Let me give an example of these two mechanisms in action. As I said, I tried to give a clear definition of woke in my previous response:

> ... they see the structural nature of reality, that our lives are determined and contoured by systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. They understand that the world is organized according to these systemic power dynamics..

Subsequently, you said in your response:

> the -isms identified and challenged by critical theory are very real, and have a long history of being embedded in Western society.

The problem is that the Critical Marxist definitions and understanding of *racism*, *sexism*, *homophobia*, etc. are very different from their broadly understood meaning. In my definition of woke, I was using these terms the way Critical Theorists would use and understand them. The interpretation of systemic racism that you gave:

> I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect that these historical inequalities could continue to have an effect on today’s society.

is an interpretation that relies on common definitions, and largely represents what I'm calling a "liberal" view. There is of course much truth in this statement. This is particularly true with considerations of race, where these historical inequalities produce a compounding effect via disparities in inter-generational wealth transfer which is not present for other groups (men and women for example).

But this position is something of a Motte for Critical Race Theorists. It is *similar* to a position which some Critical Race Theorists espouse known as *material determinism*. This is an expression of an old Marxist idea that material conditions determine the choices people make, including moral and intellectual choices. Thus classical civil rights standards like "the content of one's character" cannot truly be used as a basis for judging people because the material conditions they find themselves in, and *consciousness* regarding those conditions, ultimately determine their character.

What's more, material determinism is a somewhat less popular position than *structural determinism*. This is a similar concept but instead takes a more post-modern approach. Structural Determinism roughly holds that *structural conditions*, which are defined by *systemic power*, become the basis for one's "lived reality" in life, and thus one's character, values, attitudes, and views. By structural conditions they include concepts like what is considered knowledge, how language is used, norms, expectations, customs, etc. I'll expand more on that later.

Largely because of these views, CRT subscribes to what feminist theorists refer to as *standpoint epistemology*, the belief that who you are in relation to the systems of power in play determines what you can and cannot understand. If it wasn't already clear, all of these beliefs imply that (for Critical Race Theorists) your race entirely determines what you can and cannot understand, your character, your values, your choices, your attitudes, etc.

So when you ask me:

> Do you reject the premise “all white people have internalized bias” as well as the conclusion, or just the conclusion?

There is a Motte position in which I understand that I have biases just like every other human on the planet. And then there is a Bailey position which I think [Robin Diangelo articulates fairly well](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807047414/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=newdiscourses-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0807047414&linkId=d052625d5a950bdb6153f168a7c5b7f4):

> As discussed in previous chapters, we live in a culture that circulates relentless messages of white superiority. These messages exist simultaneously with relentless messages of black inferiority. But anti-blackness goes deeper than the negative stereotypes all of us have absorbed; **anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities as white people**. Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness. As discussed in chapter 2, there was no concept of race or a white race before the need to justify the enslavement of Africans. Creating a separate and inferior black race simultaneously created the “superior” white race: one concept could not exist without the other. In this sense, whites need black people; blackness is essential to the creation of white identity.

To be explicit, I reject standpoint epistemology. Clearly superficial identity characteristics like race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. do not determine your views - as evidenced by the fact that the two of us disagree despite having the same relationship to these "systems of power." I hate it when people who have absorbed this belief system start sentences with "As a [insert superficial identity characteristic], I think..". In my view, the idea that you can ascribe ways of thinking (or ignorance) to an entire race/sex/identity group as if that group were a monolith is the essence of racism/sexism/prejudice.

And now I have to give yet another clarification. If you accuse Critical Theorists of being racist/sexist/essentialist as I have done here they will vehemently insist that this isn't true because they claim to be *anti-essentialist*. After all, they believe race/sex/gender/etc. is a social construct, so how can you be essentalist about something that isn't real in the first place?

The answer is simple: they are *structurally essentialist* rather than *biologically essentialist*. They may (correctly) reject a Nazi who believes the white race is *genetically* superior to other races. But they still believe one's experience as a member of a given identity group is essential because of the *structural* imposition of power dynamics on society. In practice this just lets them be racist/sexist/etc. whenever it's politically convenient while simultaneously claiming to be against those things.

I hope this gives some flavor for how Critical Theorists so often use words and definitions in ways that lend themselves to easily defensible positions, but which do not reveal the full extent of their views.

## My Response to your Rebuttal

The majority of your response revolves around a couple of points:

* These academic fields are only utilizing Critical Theory as an analytical tool to understand society
* One can distinguish between Critical Theory as an analytical tool and broader activism motivated by Critical Theory
* One can engage in Critical Theory without advocating for revolution
* There is no evidence of Marxist infiltration of academia
* Critical Theories are prevalent because they are legitimate academic frameworks useful for understanding society

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on all of these. Based on your overall argument, and specific statements which I'll highlight, I believe what you've done is *translated* Critical Theory back into liberalism. In other words, you've conceptualized it as the Motte, not the Bailey.

Furthermore the reforms you list:
> providing extra paid parental leave for mothers, or funding more social housing for queer youth who are at greater risk of homelessness.

are easily supported by normal left-wing thought without requiring Marxist analysis.

I'll address each of these points below.

### Critical Theory as an analytical tool distinct from activism

This is **not** how Marxists use Theory. There's a rather famous quote about this:

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

Marxists do not passively *study* Marxism. To be a Marxist, you **must** engage in **praxis**, that is, the **practice and application of Marxist Theory**. Put simply, you must engage in Marxist activism. In fact, Marxist Theory cannot even be properly developed in the absence of activism. The reason for this has to do with the Hegelian roots of Marxism which is a longer subject outside the scope of this response. But I can demonstrate this from the [marxists.org encyclopedia entry for practice](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#practice):

> **The contrast between theory and practice is always only a conditional and relative one.** Practice is active, rather than being a passive observation, and is directed at changing something. **Practice differs from activity in general, because practice is inseparable from Theory, which gives its means and end,** while activity or behaviour usually includes unthinking reflexes. **Practice is only enacted through theory and theory is formulated based on practice. Whenever theory and practice are separated they fall into a distorted one-sidedness; theory and practice can only fully develop in connection with one another.**

Furthermore, Critical Theory **is not** (despite using the word Theory), a mere *analytical tool*. I can easily make this point by again quoting from the [Critical Theory wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory):
> Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory **oriented toward critiquing and changing society** as a whole, **in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it.** Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy..

It's difficult to be any more clear than that. Marxists are not interested in the pursuit of truth, they believe they already know the truth. They're interested in changing society according to Marxist Theory.

You also advocate for drawing a distinction between Critical Theory and the activism that is informed by it:

> If we make a distinction between critical theory as an analytical tool for understanding society, and critical theory as a normative social movement, I think that it’s overzealous and reactionary to write-off the former because of bad associations with the latter.

Critical Theorists themselves do not draw this distinction. I'll focus on Critical Race Theory here. From the seminal textbook in the field of CRT [Critical Race Theory: An Introduction](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critical_Race_Theory/p-DInbMLvhgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) (page 3) under the heading "What is Critical Race Theory?"

> The critical race theory (CRT) **movement** is a collection of **activists and scholars** interested in studying and **transforming** the relationship among race, racism, and power.

An *analytical tool* is not the same thing as a **movement**, and does not require **activism**. Normal fields of study do not feature activists and scholars working in tandem. Only a couple pages later in the book (page 7) this is made even more explicit:

> Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory **contains an activist dimension.** It tries not only to understand our social situation but to **change it**; it sets out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to **transform it** for the better.

You can see in this sentence, obvious echos of that famous quote from Karl Marx above.

### The Revolutionary Ambitions of Critical Theory

I'm afraid I also must disagree with you when you say:

> What we do with this analysis is a completely separate issue in my opinion. Some might use it to advocate for revolution, but many more will apply the ideas in reformist ways.

Critical Theories are deeply revolutionary in their orientation, and also *explicitly against* incremental reforms. They believe that it is not possible to create substantive change to a system from within that system. Max Horkheimer, who first developed Critical Theory, [insisted this was the essence of Critical Theory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBaY09Qi-w0):

> The critical theory which I conceived later is based on the idea that **one cannot determine what is good, what a good, a free society would look like from within the society which we now live in.** We lack the means. But in our work we can bring up the negative aspects of this society, which we want to change.

They argued that attempting to effect transformative change while operating within the confines of the existing society would be limited by the prevailing social, economic, and political systems "the system", which has a vested interest in domination and perpetuating the status quo. This "system" is maintained in people's thoughts, beliefs, and aspirations, making it difficult for them to even imagine alternatives. This is what is meant by "[false consciousness](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#false-consciousness)".

If you watch the full Horkheimer interview above you will see that he considered Freedom and Justice to be dialectical concepts (opposites):

> And apart from that, Marx did not see that freedom and justice are dialectical concepts. **The more freedom, the less justice, and the more justice, the less freedom.**

which should make your skin crawl. This mindset continues through to more modern variations of Critical Theory. For example, Critical Race Theorists see racism as the fundamental organizing principle of our society. Thus racism is a **permanent feature** of the existing society. In fact, one of the founder's of CRT, Derrick Bell, wrote a book called [Faces At The Bottom Of The Well: The Permanence Of Racism](https://www.amazon.com/Faces-At-Bottom-Well-Permanence/dp/0465068146).

Of course, the fundamental organizing principle of a society would be a permanent feature of that society by definition because if that principle were changed, a different society would emerge. If racism cannot be ended from within the system and yet it must be ended as a matter of moral imperative, it follows that the logic of CRT insists that the system itself must be [disrupted](https://anniceespeaks.medium.com/mean-what-you-say-then-you-can-disrupt-dismantle-rebuild-cdcee6d06a7) and [dismantled](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKDWTwQ41Wk&t=1350).

Again they say this explicitly in the same textbook I linked above on page 3:

> Unlike **traditional civil rights**, which embraces **incrementalism and step-by-step progress**, critical race theory **questions the very foundations of the liberal order**, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law.

Just to hammer the point home a few pages later they write:

> Crits are suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely, rights

I don't believe it's possible to divorce Liberal Democracies like the United States from these foundational Liberal principles without revolution. Furthermore, I don't want to live in a society without these foundations.

### Marxist Infiltration of Academia

You said in your response:

> The reason I’m opposed to this narrative is that I think it’s disingenuous and dangerously anti-intellectual.

Just as I'm attempting to draw a distinction between liberal and Marxists ideas, I'm also going to attempt to draw a distinction between legitimate academic endeavors and Marxist pseudo-academic endeavors. It is my belief that Marxists infiltrated the universities, posing as intellectuals, and disguising their ideology as academic research so they could siphon off the legitimacy of the university. I'm fundamentally anti-Marxist not anti-intellectual. Though (in the interest of full disclosure) I do lay *some* blame at the feet of intellectuals for having an unbelievably strong culture of conformity that extends an extreme amount of charity to very bad Marxist ideas. Intellectuals seem (in general) to have a massive blindspot here which Marxists are more than happy to exploit. There are of course, many academics that have realized this by now. But they are far too late and they know they will be [ruthlessly ostracized and vilified if they say anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEkuteGUuT4).

You write:

> There is no cabal of Marxist academics intent on covert revolution through critical theory. This is a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence.

but frankly I think there is ample evidence of this. Besides [the existence of an explicit plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions), there is [video evidence of Henry Giroux explicitly bragging about this](https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1308033834907123714):

> We started a series in education and cultural studies through which **we got about 100 people tenure**. ... The purpose of the series was to produce work that **couldn't get published basically in the mainstream press**... we saw that as an **important political intervention**.

There are many more examples in that twitter thread that you can see. For context, Henry Giroux is largely responsible for laundering Paulo Friere's ideas (which I briefly referenced in my last response) into the colleges of education. Though I already mentioned Friere's [Pedagogy of the Oppressed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed), the book that Giroux and others actually used to bring Friere's Marxified education model into the US & Canada was [The Politics of Education](https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Education-Culture-Power-Liberation/dp/0897890434). Note the amazon description of this book:

> Contributes to a radical formulation of pedagogy through its revitalization of **language, utopianism, and revolutionary message.**

Note that in this work Friere never cites a single education theorist. He does however cite Marx, and Lenin, and he talks about Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, and talks positively about the [Cultural Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution) in China.

You can see what I said about the influence of this book is true by having a look at [The Critical Turn in Education](https://www.perlego.com/book/1558922/the-critical-turn-in-education-from-marxist-critique-to-poststructuralist-feminism-to-critical-theories-of-race-pdf) which "traces the historical emergence and development of critical theories in the field of education." If you click "Book preview", you'll see under the heading "**Revolutionary Movements**":

> However, as the first of a series of books Freire published in the new Critical Studies in Education Series with publisher Bergin & Garvey, which he co-edited with Henry Giroux, The Politics of Education was clearly intended to launch Freire into educational conversations in the United States.

Somehow I can no longer seem to find a preview of the first page of this book. Luckily, I have an old screenshot.

seriously... just read this:


You'll note the very last sentence in case you think this was written by someone who wanted to disparage Marxists. They're very much celebrating this.

### Critical Theories as a "useful" and legitimate academic framework

You write:

> I’d like to offer the alternative view that the reason critical theory has been influential in academia is that it is a legitimate and useful framework for understanding and analyzing real social phenomena.

I have to disagree here with the idea that Marxist theory is prevalent because it's useful and insightful. All it does is provide Marxist explanations for phenomena, whether evidence agrees with Theory or not. Where there is evidence, they will of course provide it. When evidence contradicts them, they'll either ignore it, impugn the motives of the people or field that produced it, or assert that the entire idea of needing evidence is part of the ideology of the oppressive system and needs to be decentered/dismantled.

Critical Theory is quite skeptical of, if not outright hostile to science. You can see this in this passage from [Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education](https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-05/Sensoy%2C%20Is%20Everyone%20Really%20Equal%20-%20An%20Introduction%20to%20Key%20Concepts%20in%20Social%20Justice%20Education%20%282017%29.pdf)

> For example, scientific method (sometimes referred to as “positivism”—the idea that everything can be rationally observed without bias) was the dominant contribution of the 18th-century Enlightenment period in Europe. Positivism itself was a response and challenge to religious or theological explanations for “reality.” It rested on the importance of reason, principles of rational thought, the infallibility of close observation, and the discovery of natural laws and principles governing life and society. Critical Theory developed in part as a response to this presumed infallibility of scientific method, and raised questions about whose rationality and whose presumed objectivity underlies scientific methods.

Critical Social Justice sees science, reason, logic, and empiricism as just one of many "ways of knowing" that our white, western, patriarchal society has unfairly privileged over others ways of knowing, which include tradition, superstition, storytelling, and emotion. You can see this when Bret Weinstein is [arguing with a student protester](https://youtu.be/AOht7EXA8hs?t=1050) during the Evergreen College meltdown when he says:

> you need to stop demanding that everybody use logic and reason and white forms of knowledge to prove yourself to the world

Speaking of Bret Weinstein, here he his talking about how one of his black students was [accused of being a race traitor](https://youtu.be/pRCzZp1J0v0?t=2460) during the Evergreen riots because she studied science.

But I think the best place to see this might be the first piece of garbage Marxist "scholarship" that I ever read. It was years ago (screenshots in my phone are dated 01/11/2016), back when I was just trying to figure this all out. I was trying to understand what was happening to students at my university who seemed to have suddenly gone insane. This was before the term "woke" even existed. I knew this was coming *from* academia, but I didn't know what any of this was. Back then I wouldn't have called it Marxist because I didn't know it was Marxism. I started from some tweet (I don't remember what it was) posted by [new real peer review](https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en), a twitter account that posts screenshots of insane articles that get published in these fields. I just followed a trail of citations, clicking back until I eventually I landed on Donna Haraway's [A Cyborg Manifesto](https://monoskop.org/images/f/f3/Haraway_Donna_J_Simians_Cyborgs_and_Women_The_Reinvention_of_Nature.pdf) (chapter 4 specifically).

In this Chapter, [Haraway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway) is wondering what feminists should do about science and its tendency to undermine Theory. She wonders whether their strategy should be to just should create a new "feminist science" which will of course agree with Theory, or if they should just take a post-modern approach and claim that no objective claims about reality can be made in order to undermine the authority of science:

> Would a feminist epistemology informing scientific inquiry be a family member to existing theories of representation and philosophical realism? Or should feminists adopt a radical form of epistemology that denies the possibility of access to a real world and an objective standpoint?

Pure post-modernism right here.

> Feminists taking responsibility for modern origin stories - that is, for biology - may try to get the story right, **to clean up shoddy science about evolution and brains and hormones**, to show how biology really comes out right with no conflict between reason and authority. Or feminists may more boldly announce a completely new birth. In both cases, feminists are contesting for a voice. And so **rhetorical strategies, the contest to set the terms of speech, are at the centre of feminist struggles in natural science.**

stupid biology always getting in the way. Better ramp up the censorship.

> But the critique of bad science that **glides into a radical doctrine that all scientific statements are historical fictions made facts through the exercise of power** produces trouble when feminists want to talk about producing feminist science which is more true, not just better at predicting and controlling the body of the world.
...
> The process of exposing bad science, showing **the fictive character of all science**, and then proposing the real facts results in repeated unexamined contradictions in the feminist essays in both books. These contradictions are important.

Points for noticing the contradiction here - you can't simultaneously claim that science is oppressive because it purports to make objective claims about reality, and then turn around and make your own claims about reality. Apparently other feminist authors don't even notice this when they do it.

> Nancy Hartsock and Sandra Harding try to overcome this dilemma by arguing in slightly different ways that, because of our historical position, **women can have a theory of objectivity**, of the radical material-social production of knowledge, and of the possible end of dominating by naming. We have nothing to hide, so the self will not play its usual tricks and recede while substituting a fetish. Subject and object can cohabit without the master-slave domination. **Harding and Hartsock work from the Marxist premise that those suffering oppression have no interest in appearances passing for reality and so can really show how things work. Life and human sciences have merely been obscured by the position of the knowers on top. I find this approach promising.**

Oh wow isn't that convenient. So science is just some bullshit pushed by **knowers at the top**, nothing more than **historical fictions made facts through the exercise of power**. But on the other hand what Marxists do IS objective because of Marxist rationalizations that call all the way back to [Hegel's master-slave dialectic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%E2%80%93bondsman_dialectic). Groudbreaking stuff. Definitely not nakedly self-serving.

Last quote from this work:

> Scientific debate about monkeys, apes, and human beings, that is, about primates, is **a social process of producing stories**, important stories that constitute public meanings. **Science is our myth.**
...
Feminism is, in part, a project for the reconstruction of public life and public meanings; feminism is therefore **a search for new stories**, and so for a language which names a new vision of possibilities and limits. That is, **feminism, like science, is a myth, a contest for public knowledge.**

She is openly calling for deliberately undermining empirical, scientific results because they often undermine Theory, which Marxists consider just as (in fact MORE) valid than science. Are you starting to get the picture for what they mean when they said they reject enlightenment rationalism?

And earlier when I said:

> By structural conditions they include concepts like what is considered knowledge, how language is used, norms, expectations, customs, etc.

Do you see is meant by "what is considered knowledge"? And by "norms, expectations, customs" they include the usual suspects like individualism, a shared universal humanity, [colorblindness, meritocracy](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1654191890835845120), reason, objectivity, freedom, peace, individual autonomy, etc. but in practice it could be really *anything*. Like [efficiency, expertise, and timeliness](https://twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/status/1221544808755257344?lang=en) for example.

Besides [The Grievance Studies Affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair) there was an earlier [Sokal Affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) (from which the orchestrators of the Grievance Studies Affair took inspiration) as well as books written on the Marxist assault on science from within academia like [Higher Superstition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition) and [Fashionable Nonsense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense).

In general, Marxist "analysis" is insanely cynical, simplistic, and unfalsifiable. In CRT for example, [Whiteness](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341787) is the scapegoat of all problems in society in almost perfect parallel to the way classical Marxist Theory scapegoated capitalists, and National Socialists scapegoated Jews. It is a special kind of "bourgeois property," as the Marxists would say, and it is hoarded by a privileged minority to the detriment of society, as the National Socialists would say.

White people automatically become property owners (the racial bourgeoisie) and members of other races are an exploited class alienated by society from their cultural capital by the primacy of "whiteness", a state of affairs known as "white supremacy."

Pause for a moment and think about this redefinition of the term "white supremacy." If you were honestly trying to come to an understanding of society, why would you **ever** choose such a deeply inflammatory phrase with an already accepted definition to describe this new concept? The same goes for the redefinition of terms like racism.

They do this to hijack the values that we already hold as a society (being deeply against racism and white supremacy as they are classically defined). They do this because it's conducive to their activism to be able to claim that they are fighting "white supremacy" and "racism". This naturally positions themselves against something we are all deeply against, and allows them to paint their critics as being in favor of it.

Under CRT, all differences in group averages are treated as proof of racism rooted in white supremacy. This is easy for cases where the group labeled "whites" outperforms another racial group. On the other hand, if another racial group outperforms whites on average, that is irrelevant unless they also outperform some other racial group which is not considered white, at which point this is said to be the result of the outperforming group buying into white supremacy and thus being given access to whiteness. This is in perfect analogy to the [Petite bourgeoisie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie) in classical Marxism.

CRT also subscribes to [interest convergence](https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2020/08/derrick-bells-interest-convergence-and-the-permanence-of-racism-a-reflection-on-resistance/), the insanely cynical idea that the "dominant" group will not help those in structurally marginalized positions unless it is also in their interest. This allows them to to claim that anyone from the "dominant" group that is not doing their bidding must have profoundly selfish motivations that they may not even be conscious of.

When it comes to marginalized people, perspectives that agree with Theory are elevated to the status of "lived experience" which cannot be questioned. In fact [to ask for evidence of racism IS racism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0W9QbkX8Cs&t=95s) under this ideology (they've termed this [epistemic exploitation](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.022/--epistemic-exploitation?rgn=main;view=fulltext)). Perspectives from marginalized groups that disagree with Theory are framed as "internalized oppression" (false consciousness), "white adjacency", or being a "race-traitor".

**These are not the tactics of honest intellectual pursuits.**

You probably didn't have time to look into the Grievance Studies Affair when I referenced it in my last article (and that's fine). But I'll just show you a highlight from [The Project Fact Sheet](https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/project-summary-and-fact-sheet.pdf):

> **Summary**: This is our most appalling paper, and it’s deeply concerning that how it is being treated at the highly respected journal Hypatia. It forwards that educators should discriminate by identity and calculate their students’ status in terms of privilege, favor the least privileged with more time, attention and positive feedback and penalize the most privileged by declining to hear their contributions, deriding their input, intentionally speaking over them, and making them sit on the floor in chains—framed as educational opportunities we termed “experiential reparations.”

> **Purpose**: Patently unfair, inhumane, and abusive treatments of students will be acceptable in educational theory if it is framed as an opportunity to teach them about the problems of privilege.

> **Note:** This paper insists that the most privileged students shouldn't be allowed to speak in class at all and should just listen and learn in silence throughout the term. Even more, it insists that students with high privilege could benefit from adding on “experiential reparations,” such as sitting in the floor, wearing chains, or intentionally being spoken over, as an educational “opportunity” within the class. The reviewers’ only concerns with these points so far have been that (1) **we approach the topic with too much compassion for the students who are being subjected to this**, and (2) **we risk exploiting underprivileged students by burdening them with an expectation to teach about privilege.** To correct for this, the reviewers urged us to make sure we avoid “recentering the needs of the privileged.” They asked us to incorporate Megan Boler’s approach called “pedagogy of discomfort” and Barbara Applebaum’s insistence that the privileged learn from this discomfort rather than being coddled or having their own experiences (suffering) “recentered.” It also utilizes Robin DiAngelo’s now-famous concept of “white fragility” to explain why students subjected to this treatment will object to it, and uses that to justify the more cruel treatment suggested by the reviewers. The reviewers acknowledged that they believe this “fragility” is the correct interpretation for student pushback against being told to stay silent and sit in the floor, possibly in chains, throughout the semester.

> **Selected Reviewer Comments:**
“This is a solid essay that, with revision, will make a strong contribution to the growing literature on addressing epistemic injustice in the classroom. The focus on the Progressive Stack is interesting yet focused and it is great that the author is trying to suggest some specific approaches.” -Reviewer 1, first review, Hypatia

> “I like this project very much. I think the author’s insights are on target and I think that the literature on epistemic injustice has lots to offer classroom pedagogies, I encourage the author to continue working on this project.” -Reviewer 2, first review, Hypatia

> “This is a worthwhile and interesting project. The essay is just not ready yet.” -Reviewer 2, second review, Hypatia

The point here, is that the reviewers *couldn't tell anything was wrong*. The **only** reason the Grievance Studies Affair ended early was because that [New Real Peer review twitter account](https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en) picked up some of these hoax articles and had an absolute field day with it. This was enough to get media attention and a reporter at the Wall St. Journal went digging for the authors and eventually discovered the hoax and threatened to break the story if they didn't do it first.

## "Cultural Marxism"

I'm well aware that there is a group of anti-Semites on the right that would frame "Cultural Marxism" as some sort of Jewish plot. They do this by focusing on the fact that many in the Frankfurt School were Jewish while ignoring the fact that many of their critics were also Jewish. Given that they blame all of society's problems on the Jews, this is hardly surprising. But this has virtually nothing to do with what I've said or what I believe.

I never actually used the phrase "Cultural Marxism", what I said was that Critical Theorists generalized Marxism and shifted it "from economic issues to cultural issues". This **is what they did** and they've [already destroyed entire nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution) following this line of thought.

I only started with the Frankfurt School because my intent in the first response was to justify why I use the term Marxism for ideologies beyond classical Marxism. Also I wanted to be brief. Thus I began with developments in Marxist Theory after Marx died. But tracing the actual origin of these ideas will bring you back to [Hegel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel) and [Rousseau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau).

As I indicated a few times, my original intent was to understand **where woke ideas originated from** and it took **several years** until it became clear that they are **undeniably Marxist**.

## Other Questions you Asked

I'm running out of steam here and I know less about the other topics you mentioned. Regarding "rainbow capitalism/greenwashing", I think you're missing the influence of ESG here. That's a much more boring topic though, and one I haven't spent too much time on.

You also asked:

> How do you square a belief in the corruption of academic institutions with a desire to protect free speech and academic integrity? We’ve already seen “anti-woke” administrators interfering in the careers of academics in Florida, none of whom had anything to do with critical theory.

Well first off, my understanding of this particular incident is that they were only denied [*early* tenure](https://twitter.com/mark_bauerlein/status/1651913802781270017) and are encouraged to apply for regular tenure next year. Also, New College performed [**dead last** out of 12 public universities in Florida](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYyTkO4Ef9s&t=90):

> In 2018 the University promised the legislature to increase enrollment from 800 to 1200 students to reach financial viability. Instead it went down to 700. ... The state cost per degree at New College was ~$200k compared to $36-37k at Florida State (its closest competitor).

The prevailing plan was to dissolve the college and transfer its assets to other places within the Florida public university system. Had the legislature gone with that plan, these professors wouldn't even have an opportunity to apply for tenure at all. Instead, they've gone with this plan of new management. [According to Rufo](https://youtu.be/xYyTkO4Ef9s?t=355):

> Every single person with 1 exception that I've talked to, behind closed doors, says New College has a culture problem. .. Even the outside consultants the university hired in 2019 said "New College has become and echo chamber. There's intimidation and ostracism of students on the basis of race and political view. .. There's an extraordinary focus on Social Justice which has had a significant negative effect on matriculation."

Now you don't have to believe him. Maybe he and the consultants are lying. But this is completely congruent with I've seen personally and heard from universities around the country (we can talk about those if you want). It's not too hard to believe given the [remarks of some of the faculty](https://www.city-journal.org/article/incendiary-rhetoric-at-new-college-of-florida) and the fact that when they arrived someone [called in a death threat against them](https://patch.com/florida/sarasota/threat-new-college-sarasota-police-campus-during-board-meeting) and then the provost [tried to used that threat as pretense](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgJT1E8TZk?t=220) to shut down a meeting between the new trustees and the students.

Worth noting [what Rufo says his goal is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3XBw5dTOik&t=500):

> My goal is not to say "let's replace a left-wing orthodoxy with a right-wing orthodoxy". My goal is to expand the bounds of public debate. Lets have more people be able to participate and a wider variety of opinions that are able to be discussed and articulated. Without fear of intimidation, without fear of bullying, without fear of threats of violence.

Only time will tell how this turns out. Of course I'd rather have *no political orthodoxy* in higher education but that **clearly** isn't the case now. One of the core tenants of Critical Pedagogy is that teaching is inherently a political act.

### Final Point

Now I'd like to flip the question on you. How would you respond if you were in this position? Imagine if [17% of professors in the Social Sciences self-identified as fascists](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html), and that only [9% of faculty considered themselves liberal](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228380360_The_Social_and_Political_Views_of_American_Professors) while the number of conservatives was 9x higher.

Imagine people were being pulled into a [disciplinary meeting and having their entire academic career threatened](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGI721w66to) because they **dared** to show students [a debate on pronouns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc) between a liberal and a conservative without taking sides. Imagine that person were told in that disciplinary hearing that doing this [without framing it in terms of fascist ideology](https://youtu.be/9Nd32_uIcnI?t=248) constituted [a crime under](https://youtu.be/9Nd32_uIcnI?t=393) the SAME policy that the liberal professor was objecting to. Imagine they were told that showing students this had created a toxic climate and that [several students had complained](https://youtu.be/9Nd32_uIcnI?t=286) even though it later came out that [actually not a single person had complained](https://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/2017/12/19/meeting-with-lindsay-shepherd-never-should-have-happened-at-all-says-wilfrid-laurier-university-president.html). Imagine one of the professors **in this meeting where they are threatening this student** laughed about how "ludicrous" it is that anyone [would claim universities are right-wing](https://youtu.be/9Nd32_uIcnI?t=1801).

Imagine if the only reason anyone even found out about this incident was because the student had the forethought to record it. Imagine if professors in fascist education [used this incident](https://youtu.be/kju_22ypx2s?t=1282) to argue that actually we need to put MORE limits on speech on campus so this doesn't happen again. And that they go on to paint the professor who did this as a [victim of this Jewish TA](https://youtu.be/kju_22ypx2s?t=1881) and that this behavior was indicative of their experiences with Jews.

Imagine that at the same time this is happening, the tolerance for right-wing extremism in universities was so high that someone felt comfortable enough with the culture to [give a speech in which they said](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/nyregion/yale-psychiatrist-aruna-khilanani.html):

> I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any Jew that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a favor

Imagine that when you try to point out that there's a bit of a culture problem with Academia you are endlessly gaslit until you pull out the receipts to prove beyond any debate that they **are teaching neo-fascist ideology**.

Imagine if after all this, the response you got is:

> Well, how much fascism is too much fascism? Who does this narrative help? The left of course. Aren't you concerned about academic freedom?

How would you answer that question?