Wow, this summary of the "critical race theory", a subject that seems worse than any propaganda that the Soviet bloc students have experienced during communism, is truly yummy and attacks quite some elementary prerequisites of the civilization – and, indeed, of the human supremacy in comparison with other animals.
OK, so the kids are being brainwashed by the assertion that "white supremacy" is both bad and defined by these 15 characteristics. What are they? First, it is perfectionism. If someone is perfectionist, he his white superior, and therefore bad! Cool!
We couldn't have become an advanced rich civilization without lots of people who have been (and who still are) perfectionist. Is that a white trait? Well, it is a trait that is positively correlated with the white race but the correlation is far from perfect. There are surely lots of people – yellow, brown, and black people as well as some redskins – who are perfectionist or who possess most of the characteristics in this list. It's possible that some e.g. yellow nations are more tightly associated with some of these characteristics than some of the white nations. And there are numerous wonderful blacks who have these traits claimed to be "white superior", e.g. brilliant thinkers such as Candace Owens and a bunch of others.
OK, perfectionism is indeed an essential value – one which isn't mandatory for "everyone" but the people who have it have been and still are extremely important.
The second one is the sense of urgency. This may be correlated with the white race, too. It is a characteristic that makes people capable of focusing at one particular moment which is a good thing, too. The life may be unequal. Sometimes you may just relax, sometimes you need to concentrate. This principle is very important, too. It is important for good things. Yes, it is a double-edged sword. The existence of hysteria (including the climate hysteria and the Covid hysteria) may be counted as a manifestation of this "sense of urgency", too. Well, the extreme leftists and alarmists feel "urgent" 24 hours a day and 365 or 366 days a year so my definition of "sense of urgency" (the respect for the unequal importance of the focus at different moments) doesn't apply to them.
At any rate, the sense of urgency is surely necessary for a long-term evolution (and also defense) of our civilization, too.
The third trait is defensiveness. Well, some people (usually English speakers) have often told me "you are defensive" as if it were a wrong thing. What does "defensiveness" really mean? Dictionaries say that it means exactly what you would derive from the structure from the word: it is behavior intended to defend or protect. Another definition says that it is the quality of being anxious to challenge or avoiding criticism. Is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing to defend or protect something? I don't think so. Indeed, there are lots of things we must defend and protect in order not to be crippled or destroyed. I defend lots of the principles of our civilization – and of science and some vital scientific theories – against criticisms or attacks, usually attacks by brain-dead ideologues such as the "critical race theorists".
So while I didn't have an idea for decades why someone would paint "defensiveness" as a generally bad thing, it seems that it was just another artifact of the far left indoctrination. These people have been "taught" (more precisely, big portions of these people's brains have been replaced by stinky decaying feces saying) that defensiveness is a bad thing and if someone invents any criticism, you have to embrace it as a fact and join the "critics". That indoctrination claiming that "defensiveness is bad" is why so many Millennials are parroting all these lies against science, capitalism, nation states, patriotism, family, faith, moral stability, and everything else in the world that has any value. They were trained not to resist any criticism and mindlessly join it instead!
So just to be clear, if you use the word "defensiveness" as a reliable insult, you are a pile of feces. Every sufficiently decent person – feel free to call it a "sufficiently white superior" person if you wish – knows that. Every decent person is critically evaluating things around him, including (and especially!) criticism.
Now we have quantity over quality. I don't see how this is correlated with the white race. When it comes to the population growth, for example, it seems that the "quality of new lives" is still preferred in the white nations which is why the population growth rate is lower than in other nations that prefer the "quantity of life". And there are lots of non-population examples of the same observation. So "quality" is probably more important for "the likes of me". On the other hand, quantity is still very important in many contexts. When someone actually works, he needs to make a high quantity of products or work; European nations end up producing a higher quantity of products of higher quality than the African nations (so Europe is ahead in both). I think that the attack on "quantity over quality" is actually an attack on the previous, true, sentence (the innocent observation that quantity is often important), so in practice, it is as toxic as the previous ones.
Now we have another beauty: white supremacy is manifested by worship of the written word. Paradoxically, this idea was conveyed by a written word in the PowerPoint presentation as well – a written word that the students are expected to worship. Great. What is the author saying here? That the tradition of literacy and, indeed, the whole culture of philosphers, writers, novelists, journalists and others has been one big blunder (or crime) because those were growing "white supremacy". Instead, the kids are supposed to celebrate illiteracy, abolition of books, written wisdom, newspapers, and everything else. They need to forget or dismantle Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare, and maybe even J.K. Rowling.
Again, this alleged "characteristic of white supremacy" is actually a totally essential part of the whole civilization (and not just the "Western civilization"!). Note that various brown and yellow ancient civilizations have written a lot, too. There have existed "civilizations" (although the word is debatable here, it could be an oxymoron) that never embraced writing as their "own thing" but that is a failure, not a vice. It's insane to claim that these are the only "ethical civilizations".
The next point is only one right way. Well, sometimes there are many right ways, sometimes there is only one (and sometimes there is none). When there is only one right way (and yes, people often disagree whether it is the case), it is an extremely important fact, too. Again, it is about some kind of a focus. When some people decided that only one way was right, they focused their energy on that way. We wouldn't be where we are without this focus, either.
Paternalism. People of all races are sometimes fathers and people of all races may also be "fathers" in some derived sense, e.g. teachers. I don't see this characteristic as terribly white-specific in the most general sense. But indeed, the transmission of wisdom from one generation to another has had some essential and special characteristics within the Western civilization. I am talking about specific skills (and crafts) that were transferred from the father to the son (and indirectly to spiritual, not biological, "sons"). Again, this process has been essential for humans to become and sustainably remain visibly different from other animals, for the civilization to advance to higher stages and not to drop back quickly.
Either/or thinking is a white supremacy crime, too. Cool. What is being attacked here is logic or mathematical logic – or any clear thinking. Using a fancy term of philosophers, what is being attacked here is just the law of excluded middle. It is very important to be able to think clearly, to attribute "yes" or "no" labels to propositions, and indeed, in many important cases (and a huge category of propositions that may be generated systematically, e.g. mathematical propositions), it is either "yes" or "no". One statement or another (its negation – which may however be expressed differently) – are the only two options and they are mutually excluding options.
OK, this principle – a self-evidently necessary pillar of any sharp logical thinking – is so important that I would be willing to say that a good person "must be" a white supremacist according to this slide regardless of the remaining points!
Then there is power hoarding. It makes really no sense to associate it with the white race. There is some power over the lives of 100% people in a nation and it's distributed in some way. We might say that in many non-white countries (e.g. China or the Islamic ones), the power is much more concentrated in several hands than in the white nations. On the other hand, it's still important that power may be concentrated and some people try to achieve this outcome and "hoard power in their hands". This may look bad to us if we consider those people "bad" but they have also been good and the power hoarding has been as essential for progress as any previous points.
Shockingly enough, fear of open conflict is a sign of white supremacy, too. Here, indeed, it is especially the white nations that like to avoid open conflict. Lots of the progress has been made peacefully – and that is indeed because of fear of the open conflict that is rooted in many people (and perhaps especially the white ones). Here, any association with peace, non-violence, and the peaceful or collaborative development is basically labeled an evil thing, a symptom of "white supremacy"! Cool, I am surely a "white supremacist" in this respect, too.
An essential and terrifying point: individualism. That's perhaps the main characteristic aligned with the Western civilization. The Western civilization with most of its advances – societal, moral, scientific, and technological advances – wouldn't exist without individualism. A violent foe of individualism is obviously a hardcore enemy of mine – and an enemy of everyone who cares about the Western civilization. Again, while individualism seems like a "rather typically white trait", whites don't actually have any monopoly over individualism. There are lots of blacks and others who realize how precious this principle is and who are enthusiastically embracing it. But even if the association of individualism with the white race were super-strong, it wouldn't change anything about the fact that individualism is super-important.
I'm the only one is just some combination of "only one right way", "power hoarding", and "individualism". I will not dedicate a separate discussion to it – this redundant point (and there are other redundant points in the list) just shows that the author wasn't really good at brain activities. Analogously, the crime described by the slogan progress is bigger, more is just a rewording of "quantity over quality".
Objectivity is the 14th point. How messed up a pile of junk someone has to be to overtly fight objectivity? Objectivity is what regulates all the personal ambitions, individualism, power hoarding, ways that are the only ones etc., what chooses the winner according to rules that ultimately benefit whole nations or mankind. It is also essential for the proper decision which "either/or answer" is the correct one.
Finally, the last demonized sign of "white supremacy" is the right to comfort. This is a bizarre point on a slide written by an extreme leftist because it is a characteristically left-wing ideological view to expect that "people are entitled to live in comfort". Sometimes the guaranteed level of comfort (by the leftist systems) is really high – so new departments of universities are being built to comfort the students who have terrifyingly seen a picture of Donald Trump, for example. (You have seen the name in the previous sentence: now you have the right to comfortably retire.) It is exactly the conservatives or right-wingers – i.e. the people called the "white supremacists" – who deny the existence of the "civil right to live comfortably" (and the existence of many similar "entitlements"). But what is true is that most people wish to arrange their lives so that they live comfortably. Indeed, that is a huge force that has governed progress, too. I think that people of all races (and even most animals) want comfortable lives, too. But what is different about structured (often white) civilizations is that they invent clever techniques how to increase the comfort – in many cases, it is done in such a way that the comfort is temporarily lowered before it's increased and the overall or average result is positive, however.
As you can see, I consider about 13-15 characteristics of "white supremacy" to be absolutely fundamental values. Because this "critical race theory" (CRT) slide actually represents what is being associated with "white supremacy" by most of the people who use the term "white supremacy" in 2020, I must say: According to the prevailing meaning of the word, I am a nearly perfect and proud white supremacist and I despise everyone who is not!
And that is the memo.
P.S.: And please do something with the human crap that is pumping this ideological CRT crap into children's heads. Try to be as humane as possible because this wish follows from my white supremacy as well!
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat