More important than any theory is the question of WHO CONTROLS IT? If Critical Race Theory were controlled by Palestinians, it would focus on Zionist villainy. If it were controlled by the so-called Dissident Right, it would focus on 'race-realism' and pro-white identity. In a way, what Jared Taylor does is a kind of Critical Race Theory but from the vantage point of Hu-White Interests. Of course, the 'right-wing' discussion of race is currently closer to the truth than the 'left-wing' kind, but it wasn't always so. One could argue that National Socialists were one of the first modern Critical Race Theorists, and they got much about race wrong.
The Frankfurt School wasn't about race but class and culture(though they were plenty racial in their sympathy for Zionism). The classic left disdained discussion of race & biology, preferring to focus on social forces, economics, and culture(in some cases). It was the Right that insisted on biology. The Left insisted that all races were more or less the same and that apparent racial differences could be overcome with new laws and policies. The Frankfurt School was about Critical Theory, not Critical RACE Theory.
The introduction of the element of race is actually an appropriation of rightism into leftism, just like so-called Multi-Culturalism appropriated from rightism the element of culture. Classic Leftism, especially stemming from Marxist Theory, focused on economics and material forces of history. Culture, though important, was seen as a product of economic forces than an influence, let alone a determinant. So, those who emphasized the power of culture were missing the point. The real prize was economic power, and then, the rest, including the proper kind of culture, would logically follow. Turn the economics leftist/communist and the culture would naturally reflect the new reality of economic justice.
But Antonio Gramsci dissented from this dogma and emphasized culture as a shaper of future events. Even so, his view was decidedly leftist in that, by 'culture', he meant the arts, literature, propaganda, music, and etc. He didn't mean culture as in 'cultural heritage and identity'.
But that is precisely what Multi-Culturalism focused on. It argued that Liberal Capitalist society was robbing people, especially minorities, of their cultural identities, heritages, and roots. Therefore, people must keep their cultural identities separate and intact from the mainstream culture dominated by the majority. It sounded like a program of mini-traditionalism for minorities against the cultural imperialism of assimilation into the majority.
Of course, it was a bait-and-switch as Multi-Culturalism wasn't really interested in different cultures and identities but mainly served as a rallying cry against whiteness, Western prestige, and/or Christianity. It was a Jewish ploy to use Diversity against the White Majority. In the end, Multi-Culturalism didn't encourage various minorities to cling to their roots but to indulge in trashy pop culture, demented feminism, decadent globo-homo, and mindless Afrodolatry. Still, Multi-Culturalism was a leftist appropriation of the Right in that it used CULTURE or cultural identity as a weapon against the mainstream. Classic Leftism encouraged the abandonment of traditional cultural identities, customs, and values in favor of universal theory of justice for all brethren and sistren.
Now, with Critical Race Theory, the so-called 'left' went another step and adopted the element of race from the Right. If the Classic Left was about the need to overcome the notion of race, Critical Race Theory and the 'neo-left' are about discussing and determining everything through the prism of race, race, race, especially black, black, black. Of course, ostensibly CRT is about overcoming the legacy of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacy', but it is really based on two convictions that CRT proponents dare not spell out but deeply feel in their core:
1. Despite all the new social policies and programs, racial differences remain. Blacks underperform, dramatically in many cases, vis-a-vis other races and, therefore, RACIAL solutions must be found to address the problem: More 'affirmative action', more 'diversity'-mongering, more paeans to blackness, more 'white guilt'-peddling, and even reparation(to be followed by many more as blacks will take the money and waste it on bling, weaves, flashy cars, crack, and fried chicken). This part of CRT is based on black inferiority. No one dare say it, but the assumption is blacks need extra help or HEP forever and ever cuz they just can't cut it on equal footing with others. In the past, stuff like racial remedies were proposed and defended as temporary measures that would aid blacks to gain equal footing, but with CRT, they are meant to be permanent fixtures because it is widely assumed that blacks will never catch up and therefore require special attention indefinitely.
We know it, they know it, but no one dares say it cuz it be "racis' and shit". Thus, CRT is a paradox. It is based on racial differences but theorizes to pretend otherwise. Boiled down to essentials, it says blacks need Extra Hep cuz they be less intelligent but theorizes about 'white supremacism' and 'systemic racism' to justify the Extra Hep. That way, CRT gets to be racial and anti-racial at the same time. "Honkey, gibs me extra gravy cuz I is a dumbass Negro... but dat be hurtin' my bigass ego, so, let's pretend you is racis' & shit and dat's why I's gots no money, sheeeeeeiiiiit?" Blacks get something from this, but so do white libby-dibs in their endless 'virtue signaling' about BLM.
2. If one side of CRT is really based on black inferiority, the other side is based on black superiority. Every people have a tragic history, but why do blacks get extra attention? Same reason Jews do. Shoah is deemed more tragic because Jews are the superior race of Albert Einsteins and Carole Kings. No one quite says it like this, but they feel it.
Same goes for Negroes. Because of the song-dong-strong factor(rap music, sexual prowess, and athletics), blacks are fetishized as a special super race, which was the point of the movie GET OUT where white liberals love blackness so much that they take over black bodies. Of course, as CRT grew out of leftist Critical Theory, it cannot honestly and forthrightly express its racial bias, but the bias is clearly there. Would people care so much about blacks if not for their prominence in music and sports? When blacks howl about CRT, they are not talking about mere justice but yapping about how they done deserve the most money, respect, power, privilege, and etc. because they be the superior race of song-dong-strong factor, and besides, they gots them bouncy booties dat be 'twerking' and shit. Black women think, "We be twerking, and dem white girls be imitating, and dat means we be creative while white folks be stealing and shit." That is how they really 'think'.
So, CRT is a strange racial theory of both black inferiority and black superiority. At the core, it's about 'blacks need reparations cuz they be dumber' and 'blacks deserve more blings cuz they be cooler', but both obviously racial propositions are paved over with politically correct 'theory' that pretends black problems are the product of 'systemic racism' and 'white supremacism'. And this is good for Jews because they get to use blacks to milk 'white guilt', which is then used to make whites obey Jews and support Zionist tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa.
Rather than examining CRT, we need to look into WHO CONTROLS IT, and it's the Jews, far more so than blacks. Jews think, blacks drink.
It's like the fates of communist ideology in various settings ultimately depended more on who controlled it than what it preached. No wonder communism in the USSR and communism in China turned out so differently. And CCP under Deng moved in a very different direction from CCP under Mao. Officially they were all Marxist-Leninist but the theory could be molded into whatever by whomever had control over it. Same with Christianity. It could be anything from Russian Orthodox Church that served the conservative Tsars to Liberation Theology that allied with Marxists in Latin America against the oligarchies backed by US power.
In America and the West in general, CRT is really Jews using blacks against whites. And it’s not because Jews like blacks. It’s that Jews know blacks are profitable due to sports/music and symbolically valuable because of ‘muh slavery’. In a way, black success in sports/music adds to the symbolic value as whites feel more sympathy, guilt, and awe about those they deem superior. Many whites regard blacks as the superior race and feel more guilt about what they did to them. About American Indians, not so much as they’re seen as stone-faced drunkards who aren’t good at much of anything(even though the Indians are by far the most tragic people in American History).
Notice how CRT is never about the evils done to Palestinians by Jews. It’s almost always about Jews using blacks and ‘diversity’ against whites. Jews set the basic template of blacks-bitching-about-whites, and so, other groups play along as they are generally lacking in agency, honesty, originality, and integrity. So, yellow dogs bitch about whites even though blacks attack them in the streets. (But then, white dogs bitch about China even though Jews are leaders in White Destruction. It’s all very idiotic but understandable given the fear and awe that the various goyim feel toward Jewish Power.) You have Hindus and Muslims bitching about whites even though they can see plain as day that Jews control everything in the US. Jews have done great harm to the Muslim world, but most Muslims in the US ally with Jews against whites, but then idiotic whites serve Jews against Muslims. Why do Muslims ally with Jews? Because Jews are for more non-white immigration. Also, even though Jews are more dominant in the Democratic Party, Muslims find the GOP even more servile to Zionism and Israel. Besides, Muslims are a bunch of cowards who go for the strong horse(Jews) and, of course, they are divided amongst themselves and will side with non-Muslims against other Muslims. (But then, Europeans routinely sided with Muslims against other Europeans, like Germans in alliance with the Ottoman Empire in WWI. And, UK recruited non-white soldiers in their empire to kill other Europeans.)
CRT never addresses the tragedy of all those Arabs and Muslims killed by white soldiers used as attack dogs by Jewish supremacists.
CRT is about anti-whiteness, but where does it come from? It comes from Jews who control media and academia. And its main purpose isn’t justice or equality but to perpetuate Jewish Supremacism. Jews know their power depends on abject white servility. Jews know physical servility is downstream from soul-servility. To make white souls servile to Jews, the cult of ‘white guilt’ is promoted, especially pertaining to blacks, the race of MLK and Michael Jordan. That is the essence of CRT. Thus, once Jews own white souls, white bodies follow and do as Jews order.
Always go to the source. We need to ask, "What is the source of CRT in America?" Consider two films: MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON and THE RIVER.
MOUNTAINS is about the search for the source of the Nile. A great river, but where does it originate? And THE RIVER is a Taiwanese film where water keeps pouring from above in an apartment complex. But instead of dealing with the source of the problem, the characters seek various palliative means that don’t address and solve the real issue.
Many on the dissident right discuss blacks and CRT and this and that, but many still refuse to address the SOURCE of this pollution. It is Jewish Supremacism.
Jews regard goyim as animals, and current Jewish policies reflect this.
Consider humans and nature. Humans cannot do without nature. No nature, no mankind and civilization. Still, mankind insists on 'taming' and controlling nature, dominating other organisms be they animals or plants. Mankind builds dams and canals to control flooding or to harness nature’s energy in a productive way. Mankind relies on oxygen produced by jungles but creates its own space that is separate from and relatively free of the forces of nature. Jungles must exist but apart from mankind. Soil must exist and rain must fall but be kept out of homes. And semi-natural farmlands are separate from cities and towns where most people live. Mankind relies on ants to enrich the soil, but ants mustn’t be allowed into the house. So, mankind relies on nature but maintains dominance over it or keeps it at bay even while harnessing and harvesting its bounties.
Of course, mankind doesn’t only control nature but itself because, left unrestrained and unregulated, mankind may well overly exploit nature and pollute/destroy everything, thereby destroying mankind along with the nature. And so, there are environmental laws and all sorts of rules that regulate human behavior. Still, look at any map, and mankind favors its interests far above those of other organisms. US is a huge nation, but most of the land has been turned into cities, towns, farms, and etc. Relatively few areas are left to wilderness. Even so-called National Parks are heavily intruded upon by mankind. And there are only few sanctuaries left for animals deemed dangerous to mankind: bears, wolves, cougars, and etc. The bias is overwhelmingly in favor of mankind. Mankind totally dominates but is restrained from absolute exploitation. Meanwhile, wildlife is allowed to flourish unperturbed only in a few areas.
Indeed, mankind’s magnanimity toward organisms depends on the total domination. It’s like the US could be nice to Germany and Japan only after their total defeat in World War II. It’s like white Americans could be kind to American Indians only after the Red Savages were totally crushed. Compassion follows compulsion. Because there is no danger of Indians scalping white folks any more, whites can look upon Indians with sympathy. Because there’s little danger of wild animals devouring us, we can speak up for nature and defend wildlife. But if animals roamed all around us and routinely attacked us, we wouldn’t be so nice.
This is why Jews reacted so hysterically to the rise of populism. To them, it was the equivalent of mankind being challenged once again by nature. In the Jewish mind, Jews are humans whereas goyim are closer to beasts and animals. Goyim exist like dogs and cattle to serve Jews as the mankind. Goyim must either be domesticated(and turned cucky-wucky) or, if unwilling to be trained or neutered under the Jewish whip, be kept away from the Jewish-human domain. In the current US, Jews offer carrots to the cucky-wuck whites and use the stick to push ‘antisemitic’ white goyim into the outer-zone. No jobs, no banking accounts, deplatforming, censchwarzship, and even prison. If you’re a white dog, you must obey. If you’re a white wolf, you must be cast out and even hunted down as ‘domestic terrorists’.
Jews rely on goyim like mankind relies on nature. But just as mankind insists on controlling and dominating nature, Jews insist on controlling and dominating goyim. Mankind can have nice feelings about nature AS LONG AS nature doesn’t encroach upoon and challenge man’s dominance. Even the most fervent environmentalist wouldn’t want wolves to enter his town and eat his dogs/cats and attack his wife and kids. Likewise, Jews believe goyim are tolerable only when they are totally in the control of Jews. If goyim take on minds of their own, Jews get awful pissed as such would challenge their rightful sense of total dominion.
The difference between whites and Jews comes down to this. Even though whites were ‘racist’ in the past, their Christian value system has had an ameliorating effect. So, even though they were ruthless in invading and crushing the Other, once the dust cleared and whites won, whites could be somewhat generous and conciliatory. Even a bit remorseful. This was also because whites became the solid majority or the overwhelming power. In the US, whites came to outnumber the Indians by a huge margin. Over Japan, US domination was so total that the US could make nice with the Japanese who were crushed in body and soul, even forced to abandon their gods.
In contrast, Jews have nothing like Christian values. At the core, they are animated by tribal supremacism. Also, Jews are fated to be a small minority even in countries where they gain great wealth and power. Thus, they feel paranoid about the day when the goy mobs may finally awaken and come at them with pitchforks. Also, Jewish racial personality is nastier than that of whites.
So, if white domination had some limits, there is no limit to Jewish domination. Unlike whites, Jews never feel, “We have enough and should make nice with the Other.” Just ask the Palestinians. After having taken most of the land, Jews are now even carving up what remains of West Bank. And Jews allow ZERO sympathy for Palestinians(or Syrians and Iranians for that matter) in the media that they control. It’s always about the poor, poor, holy, sacred Jews. If Jews feel zero sympathy for the Palestinians, a truly powerless people, imagine how they feel about whites. Jewish feeling is a combination of fear, hatred, contempt, resentment, paranoia, arrogance, and greed. Jews exploit goyim like some people exploit nature: Without limits, without conscience. There's no sense of reciprocity in the Jewish attitude toward goyim, just like some people feel nature exists merely to be exploited for short term gain.
Unlike whites who came to concede that the peoples they defeated also had their pride, reasons, and justifications, Jews insist that only they are right while all their rivals, enemies, or whatever are totally wrong. Jewish attitude toward goyim isn’t much different from Hitler’s attitude toward Slavs. “We rule, they obey”, and that’s that. In the end, American Indians got some respect from whites. But Palestinians get NOTHING from Jews.
Now, consider how Zionists exploit BLM to serve their own agenda. It’s such a dirty Jewish trick. Via BLM, Jews pick up moral credits and shield.
Of course, BLM is bogus as, in reality, it's the blacks who are most bigoted and violent, but that’s not how official/public morality works. What matters is the Idols and the Narrative. Because of the idolatry of MLK and Mandela, blackness has been made synonymous with ‘anti-racism’, ‘justice’, and ‘human rights’. So, blacks can act like louts and trample on the rights of others, but it doesn’t matter because the mere fact of blackness places blacks upon the pedestal of ‘justice’. It’s like Negro Nobility or Negrobility.
It doesn’t matter how blacks act because blackness has become synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement. If Marxism lionized a class, the proletariat, the BLM movement lionizes blacks as automatically and inherently noble based on historical associations and idolatry. But such mentality has roots in Christian and American histories as well. Christians long believed, “Because Jesus was crucified and early Christians were persecuted, all Christians are eternally holier and nobler… while Jews are forever tainted with the killing of Christ.” And Americans have this crazy idea that just because the new republic was founded in rebellion against the British Empire, Americanism has always been and shall always be about freedom, justice, liberty, and etc…. when, in fact, Americans broke apart not to be free of empire but to create an empire of their own and indeed became the new empire that not only expanded westward and took land from Mexico but also grabbed the remainders of the Spanish Empire and engaged in destructive wars in Asia and Middle East and continues to use Latin America as its backyard. So often, identity becomes associated with morality. We know this from Jews certainly: Just because of the Shoah, every Jew is an Anne Frank forever and ever.
So, it doesn’t matter if BLM is BS in the minds of multitudes of morons. What matters is the idolatry around blacks. Blacks, being ‘holy’, can make any accusation, throw any tantrum, riot & loot, sack city after city… but they are always a holy noble people who must be understood, sympathized with, placated, and appeased.
Granted, there is an element of fear as well as guilt-and-compassion. After all, blacks are tough, aggressive, and wild. In the past, whites had the spine and wherewithal to retaliate harshly against black thuggery, but no such resolve exists today. So, when blacks act up, whites fail to unite and fight back. Fearing black rage and violence, whites cuck harder and harder in the hope that black rage will subside… that is until the bitch is in heat again.
Same with Jews. Part of the reason for whites cucking to Jews is due to sympathy stemming from the Holocaust, but the bigger reason is Jewish Power. Jews can destroy anyone financially, legally, politically, or socially, and so most people suck up to Jews. Because whites don’t want to admit their fear and come across as a bunch of scaredy-cats, they pretend their favoritism toward blacks and Jewishness is a matter of sympathy and admiration than fear and cowardice.
Because of the ‘iconic’ status of blacks, it doesn’t matter how blacks behave. The thing is to have blackness on YOUR side as a moral boost. It’s akin to having ‘god on our side’. As Jews paid off blacks by funding BLM, blacks don’t discuss the plight of Palestinians and instead make nice with Jews. Why bite the hand that feeds you? We saw this with Al Sharpton who began his career by bashing Jews as ‘diamond merchants’. But Jews paid him off, and he’s been a House Negro in the Jewish Mansion ever since. Jews got plenty of money, and they can buy off any number of blacks.
Jews sure play dirty. Even as they ordered the police to crack down harder on black crime to make cities safer, whenever blacks riot or express rage Jews scapegoat the ‘white supremacist’ police and pretend to be friends with blacks. Blacks surely know this dirty trick, but hey, they love money, and Jews are willing to pay big bucks. And as Jews control the gods, the big corporations and the deep state play along because they operate on the rule of “Jews lead, Goyim follow.”
With BLM on their side, Jews got their moral cover, and they can do whatever they want to Palestinians, Arabs, Syrians, Iranians, Muslims, and etc. Sure, some people do call out on Jewish-Zionist evil, but the official morality in the West is about who/whom. Some peoples have the aura of sanctity while others don’t. So, when Jews or blacks complain, it's a big deal because they are holy, which makes their words holy. But if other groups complain, it doesn’t matter because their identities lacks sanctity. We know there’s a difference between a Jew wailing over a dead Jew and an Arab wailing over many more dead Arabs. Jewish voice matters because Jews are holy. As for Arabs, who cares? When blacks bitch about a dead black killed by a white, it’s a big deal. But when whites bring up the issue of whites killed by blacks, there’s silence or condemnation of it as 'racism'. You see, any negative stereotype about blacks is 'racist', therefore any negative fact about blacks is also 'racist' because the sum of all those facts confirms the stereotype as valid. In other words, you must favor the 'anti-racist' fantasies about blacks than consider the 'racist' facts about them. When it comes to blacks, moral fate precedes material facts. Judgement comes before truth. The judgement is 'blacks are holy', therefore facts must bear out that judgement. But what if facts say otherwise? What if facts say blacks aren't naturally holy or glowing with sanctity due to history? What if facts say blacks are the most problematic and troublesome race? Then, the facts must be rejected as 'racist'. Indeed, the Derek Chauvin conviction flows from this logic. As it's been judged blacks are holy, George Floyd who really died of drug overdose has to be made into a saint murdered by white 'racism'. But what about the facts that say otherwise? Never mind them, and always remember, it's been judged by the powers-that-be that blacks are holy, therefore if fantasy is more useful than facts in confirming the judgement, go with the fantasy.
Because blacks have been made officially holy in the West, Jews know that an alliance with blacks will bestow moral cover upon the Tribe. Jews pay off BLM, and BLM colludes with Jews and blames everything on ‘white supremacism’. With the BLM moral shield, Jews spread death & destruction in the Middle East and destroy the lives of millions of Arabs, Muslims, and/or Iranians. It's like Christians of old using Jesus as moral shield for all their conquests and wars.
Jews are thus doubly protected from criticism. As Jews, they are the holy holocaust people. Protection #1. As friends of BLM, they have the blessing of the other holy people, the blacks. Protection #2. Of course, Jews are triply protected because of globo-homo. Having made homos & trannies holy in the West and having gained their blessings in return, Zionism can justify itself in Western eyes as the premier ‘pro-gay’ force in the Middle East. What about the lands stolen from Palestinians, you say? Well, who cares about those Palestinian ‘homophobes’ when it’s the wonderful Jews who are spreading the holy message that sodomy is a rainbow-dream?
BLM demonstrates the power of the Politics of Examples. Those who get to choose the examples pretty much get to dominate the Narrative. Suppose there’s Billy and Bob; suppose both sometimes acted good, sometimes acted bad. Now, suppose the teacher wants to discuss the topic of Good and Bad(or Evil). Suppose he only uses Billy’s good deeds as examples of goodness while only using Bob’s bad deeds as examples of badness. Even if both kids did good things and bad things, it will create the impression that Billy is always good while Bob is always bad.
Take the issue of ‘racism’, meaning racially bigoted. There are tons of examples of Jews being ‘racist’, but such examples are never used. Instead, Jews are always featured as victims of ‘racism’ and/or ‘antisemitism’ while whites are almost always the primary examples of perpetrators of ‘racism’.
Same with slavery. Jews were involved in slavery. Blacks practiced slavery in Africa for 10,000 yrs. And slavery was a universal thing, and it ended only because of Anglo imperialism that turned moralistic at some point. But rarely are the official or approved examples of slavery those practiced by blacks or nonwhites. Also, there’s little awareness of slavery of Europeans under Turks or Mongols. Instead, most of the examples are about blacks enslaved by whites, especially North American whites(even though Latin American whites/Jews enslaved many more blacks).
So, even if an institution claims to be ‘anti-racist’ and fair to all sides, it can end up favoring certain groups over others by the misuse of the Politics of Examples. This can be downright funny as when news and entertainment deal with crime. Blacks are the top criminals and thugs, but most news or entertainment prefer to feature whites as top criminals. Of course, there are white criminals, but the dishonest and disproportionate use of examples create the impression that white violence is the scariest thing in America.
Or, consider the Politics of Examples as pertaining to terrorism. Israel was created through terrorism. It has committed many terrorist acts. It continues to commit terrorist acts in Syria and Iran. It has aided ISIS and Alqaeda and most likely nudged Alqaeda to attack the US on 9/11. But the examples of terrorism are usually Arab or Muslims. At times, when Jews want Arabs/Muslims in the West as their allies, they resort to making ‘white supremacists’ out to be the main examples of ‘terrorists’. Just like the use of sampling determines the statistics on the general population, the use of exampling shapes the impression among the general population.
No wonder the US came up with the idiotic policy of going lenient on black misbehavior in the classroom. We all know more black kids got suspended because they act worse than other students. But the cumulative impact of the Politics of Examples(that usually featured blacks as victims than perpetrators) led to the idiotic notion that black kids were being denied the opportunity of equal education because of ‘racism’.WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IN JERUSALEM W/ ROBERT INLAKESH