As Black History Month Seeks to Combat Racism, Illiberal Left Pushes New Racist Paradigm

The concept of equality for all is being challenged by a new force that says race is the primary factor by which everyone should be judged.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 [Open in app]( or [online]() [As Black History Month Seeks to Combat Racism, Illiberal Left Pushes New Racist Paradigm]( The concept of equality for all is being challenged by a new force that says race is the primary factor by which everyone should be judged. [Matt Agorist]( Feb 1   [Save]() [▷  Listen](   Hello Free Thinkers, It’s February and that means it’s time for government to relegate the entirety of Black history to a single month — which happens to be the shortest month too. To quote Morgan Freeman, “Which month is Jewish History Month? … I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.” Indeed. Prior to February 1, a constant flurry of propaganda from the media and government has been playing out about how anyone who opposes Critical Race Theory is racist. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is being compared to Hitler for opposing it in Florida and while DeSantis is wrong on plenty of issues, this is not one of them. There are certainly some idiot racists out there who oppose CRT over the mere fact that they judge people based on skin color. But there are also entirely legitimate reasons to oppose it; the main one being that some of it is actually racist. If you look at the mainstream sources about why DeSantis is rejecting the AP Black History course, they are framing it as if he is against blacks and against black history and so forth. None of them mention that the AP course is injecting Critical Race, Queer theory, intersectionality, and all of that nonsense. They say it's just "controversial" issues that should be explored and only conservatives are against it because of white fragility. If you are against the AP course then you want to erase black history. Again, while there is certainly no shortage of actual racism, it is important to look deeper than divisive talking points meant to distract you from the truth. TFTP’s Justin Gardner gave his thoughts on these issues recently and I felt like this was an important piece to help our readers sift through the propaganda and find the truth. That piece is below and it is definitely worth the read. As always, if you enjoy our content and want to see more of it, please consider supporting us. Peace! Matt [Upgrade to paid]( As we celebrate Black History Month, it behooves us to remember that great champion of the Civil Rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Battling the indignity of Jim Crow, King ushered the principle of equality into society and law. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” These words, part of his most iconic August 1963 speech, shook America and started a groundswell that could not be denied. It was a simple, powerful message capturing the teachings of Enlightenment thought (natural rights) and the evolution of society. But the concept of equality, which has been so successful in bringing rights and freedoms to people of color, is being challenged by a new force that says race is the primary factor by which everyone should be judged. Indeed, they criticize the words of King himself as failed. This force is not a creature of right-wing fascism but something that deserves a new term—[illiberal leftism](. It is characterized by hostility to free speech and individual expression, instead believing that group identity dictates human interactions. They say equality and the Civil Rights movement are not good enough. These regressive beliefs are rooted in Critical Theory (CT), a supposed ‘academic’ field which began taking shape in the 1980s-90s as an outgrowth of failed postmodern theory. They reject reason, individuality and free speech, favoring group identity and the suppression of speech deemed harmful to their imagined structure of society. Matt Taibbi summed up the thinking of these faux luminaries—and their rejection of King’s vision—in his [epic takedown]( of Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling CT bible: “White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. This is an important passage because rejection of King’s “dream” of racial harmony — not even as a description of the obviously flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future — has become a central tenet of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream press outlets are rushing to embrace.” Despite continual progress in race relations over many decades (backed by statistics), CT says that forceful action must be taken to create “equity” in society, using whatever means to achieve identity quotas across the lived experience. The Critical Theory movement began a concerted effort to push their ideas into academia, and they have now managed to become a significant force at universities. CT proponents, to a large degree, [enjoy freedom from critique and debate]( because a central theme in their arguments is that one’s identity bestows truth. They simply do not have to deal with the usual logical analysis. Oftentimes when someone outside the identity group offers a critique, no matter how reasonable it is, they are branded a racist, shouted down before being considered, and may even lose their job. Take, for example, [the case of Dr. Klaus Fiedler]( former editor of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. When Fiedler invited critique on an article by professor Steven Roberts—who was arguing that scientific authors should be categorized by race and editors should enforce diversity quotas—Dr. Fiedler became subject to an online mob. Roberts publicly accused Fiedler and three other authors of acting in a manner that was “unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist.” Fiedler didn’t even get a chance to provide his side of the story before being asked to resign. In essence, Roberts got to propose identity quotas in academics and say that the color-blind principle promotes discrimination—without having to defend the idea. In one swipe he neutered the age-old standard of logical rigor and silenced criticism. This is but one of countless examples where the goals of Critical Theorists are being met. Place identity first and foremost, ignore traditional reasoned debate, suppress speech that challenges their worldview, and silence those outside the identity group who dare to disagree. What would Martin Luther King, Jr. think of these modern-day speech police, this new facet of politics aptly called the illiberal left? Defenders of CT in some traditional media like to brand those who question as “right-wingers” and invariably bring up the name Donald Trump. But the right’s critique amounts to made-for-TV slogans and fundraising tactics to inflame the culture war. What CT defenders ignore is the fact that the most powerful argument against Critical Theory comes from classic liberalism, which has brought about so many freedoms we enjoy today. The tenets of classic liberalism—established over centuries beginning with the Enlightenment—include individual rights, liberty, equality, and free speech. These apparently don’t sit well with Critical Theorists and the illiberal leftists who accept their arguments without question. Indeed, they are willing to curtail rights and use government force to accomplish their goals. The American Prospect [states it plainly]( noting that CT proponents call for “anti-racist interventions” by “…adopting ideas and policies that conflict with established commitments to competitive individualism and limited governmental powers.” Again, what would MLK, Jr. think? Though their goals may be noble, self-proclaimed “anti-racists” steeped in Critical Theory, and the illiberal mobs doing the job of silencing speech, want to impose conditions that society will not accept. Their arguments are easily debunked, but they label criticism as the product of racism and therefore illegitimate. The strategy of CT amounts to using race-based policies to fix racism. Obsessing over skin color, and basing law on identity quotas—instead of looking beyond skin color as MLK Jr. urged—will only bring resentment and create government powers devoid of logical bases. Granted, there is more progress to be made in U.S. race relations. Let’s build on equality, on the color-blind principle, which has a proven record of success. Government has no duty beyond codifying equality into law, which urges society in a non-authoritarian way to embrace the acceptance of all persons regardless of skin color. Let’s be judged by our merits, as MLK, Jr. pleaded so eloquently, and reject the divisive nature of identity politics. You're currently a free subscriber to [The Free Thought Project](. For the full experience, [upgrade your subscription.]( [Upgrade to paid](   [Like]( [Comment]( [Share](   Read The Free Thought Project in the app Listen to posts, join subscriber chats, and never miss an update from Matt Agorist. [Get the iOS app]( the Android app]( © 2023 Matt Agorist 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 [Unsubscribe]() [Start writing]()