April 14, 2021

Survive the News

We're Breaking the Censorship

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity | James Lindsay

42 min read

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity | James Lindsay

” />

Initiative Q is an attempt by ex-PayPal guys to create a new payment system instead of payment cards that were designed in the 1950s. The system uses its own currency, the Q, and to get people to start using the system once it’s ready they are allocating Qs for free to people that sign up now (the amount drops as more people join – so better to join early). Signing up is free and they only ask for your name and an email address. There’s nothing to lose but if this payment system becomes a world leading payment method your Qs can be worth a lot. If you missed getting bitcoin seven years ago, you wouldn’t want to miss this. Join here for free — For those who joined up already contact me here so I can add you to the queue for adding your invite link on Survive the News.

On the surface this quickly growing movement promises to fight racism, sexism and numerous otherisms. They do this openly through political correctness and identity politics, but as James Lindsay says, The veil is identity, underneath the veil is commitment and compliance to their ideology. They use identity as a proxy to hide their very strict very conformist very totalitarian view of politics from criticism.

They are inciting anger on the streets. They are in the educational system. They are embedded in social, news and entertainment media. Probably the most dangerous collectivist movements inside America this century are by the Critical (Power) Theorists with their evolved cult like indoctrination and philosophical reprogramming methods used to create loyal militant activists that may use any means they feel they can get away with. I use the word “cult” because this movement exploits all the essential tactics that define a cult per James Lindsey. It even includes it’s own convoluted language of doublespeak to lure people into their cult.

These collectivist movements include critical race theory, critical gender theory, critical fat theory, critical environmental theory, etc. Their Postmodern Marxist roots which reject objectivity and brutally push their own subjective truths are increasingly seen tearing apart American culture and Western values such as individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as freedom of speech, family, free trade, justice, science and reason.

Out of all the complex videos I’ve looked at about these critical movements this might be one of the most important and easiest to understand. James Lindsay speaks about THEIR ideological views of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE.)

Warning! You may not be as passive if you watch this video.

If you want to understand the Woke ideology, you have to admit that you’re not ready to understand Woke ideology. Everyone knows that the Woke use terminology with their own inventive and biased definitions, but understanding that terminology requires understanding how the Woke think about the world. It isn’t possible to understand concepts like “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity” without first understanding that the Woke see everything in the world through a particular lens of power. When you do understand how the Woke see the world and thus how they use language to their advantage, you’ll also understand how we’re all being played. Diversity gets revealed as a program to concentrate resources, influence, status, and power in the hands of Woke Critical Theorists while disempowering everyone else.

Inclusion is comprehensible as restricted speech, intentional segregation, and a justification to concentrate their idea of “diversity.” Equity is the goal, which has to be understood as a combination of affirmative action and reparations used to redistribute resources and engineer outcomes in the name of correcting past injustices. Everything can be threatened by this change of context in our language to one that interprets everything through “systemic power dynamics.” Our contracts, our laws, and even our Constitution can all be reinterpreted to mean something completely different without having to change a single word through this Woke manipulation of language. Join James Lindsay as he walks you through the Woke mindset and how it can, and will, be used to turn our societies’ core principles back against them.

The Great Awokening Conference, Session 2 Follow James Lindsay: https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames


Transcription (not 100% accurate)

So, um, according to the documents supposed to talk to you about diversity, inclusion and equity. And I have to start with a confession that I have a bit of a frustration that I’ve been living for the last several years, which is when I try to explain what seems to be a simple word, like diversity or inclusion, to an audience,

on the internet and writing, people think I’m crazy. So I’m going to start by saying that we’re not ready

to learn about diversity, inclusion and equity. And this is what you’re going to run into, everywhere you go. That’s the point in this fight where we are. To understand diversity, inclusion and equity, you have to understand where those ideas are coming from. I realized there’s a bit of chutzpah involved in this room saying that ideas have consequences. But they do. That’s true. And the set of ideas that stands behind diversity, inclusion and equity, makes those words not mean with maybe the exception of equity, what you think they mean, and if you don’t understand that, you’re not ready to talk about it. I recently gave a talk in front of a group of people, conservatives. And at the end, a lady raised her hand and said, I don’t want to have to be smarter. I don’t have to read another book. I don’t want to have to understand, I just want to tell these people, they’re wrong. Because I know I’m right. And I know they’re wrong. And I had a picture in my mind of somebody, you know, the Nazis bombing London, and somebody saying, I don’t want to know what an airplane is, I don’t want to build an anti aircraft gun. I just want them to stop. You’ve got to understand where these ideas come from. And I have dedicated the last ever since the whole fake paper dog humping thing, two years of my life, or there abouts, that was just over two years ago that came out to helping people understand the ideology and affect the worldview in which these ideas have arisen. And it’s not what your worldview is, whether you are Christian, whether you are secular, whether you are Muslim, whether you are an old school Marxist, it is not the way you think about the world. Those people all believe in objective truth. This is a very different fight. These ideas are concerned with one and one only organizational principle of society, which is systemic power. If you don’t understand these ideas, and all of the other ideas that the woke movement uses in terms of systemic power, you don’t understand the ideas at all. And what’s going to happen is, you’re going to get played, and you’re going to get played again. And you’re going to get played again. And you’re going to get played again. And you’re going to say fun words like

you know,

the can’t mean that they must mean this more reasonable thing. And I’m going to tell you that part of you getting played is them, depending on you to translate their ideas back into liberal ease. The way that people that believe in objective truth, fairness, correspondence to reality, would understand those ideas, people who do not believe that everything in the world comes down to systemic power and its operations. So I have to walk you through a little bit of history to get you ready. And we will probably spend a lot less time talking about diversity, inclusion and equity than you may have feared. We’re going to start although the story doesn’t start here, but we’re going to start with Karl Marx. And we’re not going to dig deeply into Karl Marx, we’re not going to get into Das Kapital are not going to do the whole thing. Marx had a couple of very important ideas. One of which was very important ideas in terms of shaping the world I should say. One of which was the idea that we shouldn’t study society to understand it, we should study it to change it. Another of these ideas is what is known as conflict theory. That is that the world is separated into stratified groups. That’s a technical term to mean something like classes or castes, and that those stratified groups are in a zero sum conflict for the resources, opportunities and power in society. There is no cooperation there is no positive sum game. Positive sum is a fancy way to say all ships rise together. There’s no mutual cooperation, which is a little funny given the goal of the Communist utopia. The classes of society are in zero sum conflict. And Marx put the locus of conflict theory. on economics, he believed that if the workers could unite Workers of the World unite, that’s the same. If they could unite and seize the means of economic production, they could turn the ship of society toward the communist utopia, details to be filled in. On the other side of the Gulag didn’t work wasn’t true people noticed. In fact, people who are very relevant to the story, not just liberals noticed. And so in the late 19 teens going into the early 1920s, a group of people that eventually convened in Frankfurt, Germany, formed the School of critical theory, the Frankfurt School, the Institute for Social Research, as it was called, and they wanted to study why Marx was wrong. And they said, in a sense, following the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, that it’s not, as it turns out, just economics, it’s more complicated than that. Culture matters. And thus, the things that pop up culture matters, Faith Family, the institutions of society, those matter, those have to be subverted, that’s where consciousness has to be raised to show that there are powerful entities in society who are creating conditions, systemic or structural conditions under which other people are oppressed. So the oppressed have to be told that they’re being fed culture by the elites. And that they are accepting that and internalizing their own oppression as natural right, or the proper order of things. So we now have a shift. Some people have referred to this as Cultural Marxism, this is a fraught term, it’s very complicated issue. There are multiple things that go by that name, very skillfully, was upended the idea of a conspiracy theory, it’s anti semitic. So it’s very difficult to talk about Cultural Marxism without falling into that trap. So it’s best not to, it’s best to say they applied conflict theory to culture, which is the same thing. They applied conflict theory to these various elements of culture into the cultural institutions, and you started to have different thinkers arise. So you had Theodor adorno, Arise, he’s looking at media, he’s looking at propaganda, he’s looking at how that was used to feed the elite culture into to the common person and get them to accept their lives. You see, this emergence of popular culture starting to happen in the little bit in the interwar, but especially in the post war era, post World War Two. And they were very critical of this 1937, you had a book, it was written by Max horkheimer. That separated thought into two types of theory, traditional and critical theories. And so this is the formal birth of critical theory, it didn’t actually begin, specifically in 1918 or 1920, when the Frankfurt School began, by 1937, it was outlined that critical theories were going to come into the world to understand society so that you might change it. So we come back to Marx’s other big idea. They wanted to implement it. So now we’ve got Marxian conflict theory analysis, being applied to avenues of culture, you’ve got the high culture, high society dictating what is good in life and how people should aspire and what they should hope to what social mobility would look like, and convincing. The poor oppressed plebs that they have it good when in fact, they have it bad even though they like their lives. So you have to agitate them to do this. Critical Theory became the tool to do that. We had a quote on the marquee a few minutes ago talking about that, when you use science, the objective is to understand the truth of the thing. And when you use alchemy, the objective is operational success. In this case, science is traditional theory. The traditional theories were philosophy, they were science, they were things that cared about epistemic adequacy, they were the attempt to find truth to describe the world as it is, and to understand it. Remember, there’s this dichotomy, are we going to understand the world or are we going to change it right? So traditional theory was used to understand the world as it is critical theory was the other side, it was to understand how the systems that exist, the structures that exist are failing people. You have to understand how they’re failing people not understand how they work, how they fail people, traditional theories for understanding how they work, they work in tandem. You also have to have a normative vision, you have to know where you’re trying to change society. In this case, it was not toward Marxism, but toward communism anyway, by other means through changing culture. And you had to make a critical theory by definition, has to be applicable to social activism. So you have to have these three ingredients or you’re not dealing with a critical theory. So critical theory is born in 1937 as a means of bringing social activism to change the world according to our normative vision, by picking at the scabs of where the structures and systems of society institutions of society fall short of that normative vision. And by normal division, again, I mean, the pathway to the utopia. These ideas are very dangerous, but used in tandem, they still fall within this broad scope of modernism. Traditional theory still exists, the original critical theorists for whatever their flaws and their thinking might have been, whatever their flaws and their objective might have been. We’re still bound by objective truth, they still thought that traditional theories and critical theories must be used in tandem to understand society into advance progressively. In the 1960s, this is the subject of my book, The Mr. O’Fallon mentioned, cynical theories, and the 1960s, we had a new line of thought blossom, and the French kind of avant garde philosophy scene drawing off of art and literature that preceded it by a couple of decades. That’s post modernism. post modernism is playful by definition, and one of the main things that they want to do is play they want to play with ideas, they want to take ideas apart. That’s your deconstruction, eventually, the post modernists were highly influenced by a French school of thought that’s been mostly discredited called structuralism, that believed that the ways that language is used in society has a lot to do with the structures that evolve in society, we the way we talk the way that we believe the way that we inter interact with language and communicate meaning structure society in some meaningful way. And the postmodernists grew skeptical of this in a particular way. And said that what’s really going on is that language is a vehicle of power. So with the postmodernists, we have two kind of main ideas that were kind of brought to the fore among many, it’s a sprawling philosophical school of thought or if we stretch the word philosophical a bit to do that, but sprawling school of thought. The two main ideas are the objective truth as a matter of fact, is inaccessible. as Richard Rorty, the American pragmatist, kind of postmodernist,

put it,

the world might be out there, but the truth isn’t out there. The more famous, most famous may be postmodern philosopher, Michel Foucault, had a particular belief about truth. He thought that truth, knowledge and power are the same thing. knowledge and power are not related to one another. They’re they are, in fact, the same thing that the power applies itself through truth. So if you don’t understand this about power, we can’t understand words like diversity, inclusion and equity. So for Foucault, the belief was that you have these statements, people call them truths, somebody got to authenticate them as truth. Maybe they were scientists, maybe they’re philosophers, maybe they’re politicians, maybe they were journalists, somebody had the privilege of saying these things are true and other things are false. And in particular, for for CO, these other other things are crazy, they’re mad, those are to be completely thrown out. And he had a very pessimistic read of science. As a result, he saw science as a process of applying power through claims on truth, people went to school perhaps or they worked with the with an existing scientist, and they learned the so called methods of science. They learned how to authenticate truths as a scientist. But in fact, Foucault said, this is a political process. The process of becoming a trained scientist, has more to do with playing the political game in the social Malou, in which scientists are considered important, and in which they’re educated, then it has to do with anything else. So his underlying belief was, we have these claims about the world that are called truth or truth claims, and truths, or truth claims might be true. In reality, they might correspond to reality or they might be false. But to worry about that is to miss the point, that there was a political process that made them be considered so and so he put a really thick wall between reality and our claims about truth. Truth is now on the other side of a impossible epistemic barrier. Truth becomes a cultural artifact. So the first real principle of postmodern Thought is that truth and knowledge are cultural constructions. They are the product of a social system. And the power contained within that social system and its operations. So now truth

is power.

Everything is power. We can’t look to the world to find out if something is true or not, because power determined the method by which we will say, yes, this is true, and no, that is false. And that is right out. That’s crazy. That’s a application of power, and nothing more. And that’s where the fruitful analysis lies. They softened just to be completely fair to Foucault he softened later, near the end of his life, he gave a series of lectures on on its concept of bio power, and he was much more accepting of this, he still asserted that it was a method of applying power, but he was much more accepting of it than other, you know, more tyrannical applications of power. But the most important thing was that he had introduced and loosed into the world, a set of ideas where power no longer works, the way that the critical theorists and the Marxist before them, and then many other people, aside from that belief, power is no longer this Wait, as he said, pressing down from above, it works through all of us like a grid. And the way that it works is through discourses, the ways things are spoken about, not necessarily the words we use, but yes, the words we use, but the ways that we consider it acceptable to talk about a thing. So medical discourse, for example, would be kind of doctor speak. Doctors talk about things in certain ways. Those are medical discourses, they write about things in certain ways. Those are medical discourses. And so the ways that it’s considered acceptable to talk about certain topics became the locus of power, the dominant discourses were the conveyors of power, and it works through everybody, everybody’s a participant. And so now we have this idea that society is ordered by a conspiracy theory where everybody is an unwitting conspirator. And if you don’t understand that, this is how they think that you don’t understand that this is what systemic power means. You can’t understand the shift from racism to systemic racism that we’re facing today. Okay, so everybody’s participating in this all the time, by the ways that we think, by the ways that we structure our language, by the ways that we interact, by the ways that we consider interactions to be legitimate and illegitimate. Foucault is very concerned with the central idea of expanding the potential realities of being I love that phrase, expanding the potential realities of being. And when you do have a genuinely repressive system, you do want to expand the potential realities of being. When you have an oppressive church, you do want to open that up. For example, when you have an oppressive church saying, no, we’re not going to do science, we’re going to accept this dogma in place, and you’re going to put Galileo in house arrest, we’re gonna set Gerardo Bruner on fire for discovering the stars are positing that the stars and the sun are the same kind of thing and refusing to recant, you definitely want to expand some of your potential realities of being a little bit right. However, there there’s a limit, which is called reality. Reality. Also, route reality has a very important definition, which is it is the thing you run into when your beliefs are false. Okay, so if you expand your potential realities of being beyond the ranges of reality, whether those are the realities of physics, are whether those are the realities of human interaction and the principles that lead to to true human flourishing. You start running reliably into problems. And this is whether he were whether his analysis falls on the positive or negative valence of history is what Michel Foucault unleashed into the world that we need to expand beyond the correspondence theory of truth because truth doesn’t. Sorry, I shouldn’t say truth doesn’t exist. Truth is inaccessible. That’s the postmodern belief, nobody can claim truth. Nobody is objective, we’re all subject to our biases. And our biases are located in the cultures in which we find ourselves. Everything’s a cultural artifact. post modernism and critical theory both kind of wore themselves out. Through the 60s, they rose to the 70s, they rose and then through the 80s, they declined. post modernism is a bit silly. It’s a bit difficult to buy into at the end of the day, reality is still out there. It’s still the thing you run into and your beliefs are false. We’re not going to expand our potential realities of being that far. deconstruction has its limits, at least in terms of fruitful activism.

Critical Theory became just kind of annoying in the post war period, following Herbert Marcuse Herbert mercruiser, one dimensional man in 1964. And in one dimensional man, he explained that they need a coalition built out of the liberal intelligentsia, together with the racial minorities, and the societal outsiders. That’s who was going to push critical theory forward. And so you ended up with this vein of very radical activists who brought riots to our streets, much like we’re seeing now that 1964 is when this comes out repressive tolerance, that we should not tolerate ideas that are against that normal division of critical theory, there’s 1965 1967, Detroit on fire 1968 more riots. By the 70s, people are getting tired of this critical theory started to burn itself out. Even the academic stuff, people just kind of rolled their eyes and got sick of it. By the time we got to the 1980s going into the early 1990s. But a handful of activists, many of whom learned directly from not macusa himself, but one of his students, Angela Davis, who’s very active with Black Lives Matter today. Many of these people realized that there was a fruitful site of renewing the critical theory School of activism by picking up postmodern theory. So you can see it one way or you can see it the other way. That critical theory picked up postmodern tools or that post modernism morphed into a more critical theory mindset. But either way, the observation that brought the two concepts together into a completely new form, that we in cynical theories call applied post modernism, but it is actually the birthplace of woke ism, was that you have to have an awful lot of privilege to deconstruct a site of systemic oppression. Somebody who experiences who has the lived experience, the lived reality, of systemic oppression, can not deconstruct that you must be privileged to deconstruct that you can’t deconstruct racism, because you don’t live it. And so now we have a shift with post modernism, we’ve already slipped from the truth to your truth versus my truth. And now we’ve located that within ideas of systemic oppression that are rooted in race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, disability status, fat status, you could just go on and on. Even they, the people who promote these theories get tired of listing all of the different identity statuses Judith Butler, a very famous queer theorist, the kind of fairy godmother of queer theory, in fact, calls it that exasperated etc. When you have to list all of the different identity categories, so all of a sudden, now you have your truth as a white person, black person, man, woman, gay, straight, and my truth as a something else. And one of those ideas that they borrowed from Foucault was that those exists in different cultures. Therefore, they exist in different truth regimes. They have different ways of knowing they have different ways of understanding, and they can’t understand one another, they cannot find some objective external standard by which they can settle the difference when your truth and my truth don’t agree. There are cultural products and cultural products only. And the critical theory idea, stepped into this and said, but there is a way to judge because systemic oppression is surely wrong. If we want to be charitable, if we want to be charitable, we remember that they also said the critical theorists, that a Marxist revolution can’t have just one axis of fighting, or one axis of conflict, say, proletariat versus bourgeoisie as a constellation of axes say race and gender and sexuality and ability status and fat status and ethnicity and religion. You need multiple dimensions upon which you can fight the conflict theory fight. And so critical theory and post modernism fused into a new view of power power works through everybody it is systemic. It works in the level of discourses to create systemic oppression, those oppressions are based on identity categories, primarily because identity politics had become the ascendant thing following macusa into Davis into the critical race theorists first, especially Kimberly Crenshaw, on bell hooks,

who were black feminists, that is not to say that there are black women who are feminists, which is also true, it is actually a school of thought I have to clarify that every time people think I’m saying a thing. I’m not saying there are black feminists who were very concerned about the idea that there are multiple systems of oppression and play when you were a black woman, and they wanted to expound upon this by borrowing ideas that were growing out of queer theory. That’s all the intersections of oppression across the three things that queer theory is most Interested in which are sex, gender and sexuality. And so they borrowed these ideas and built this thing that Kimberly Crenshaw laid out and defined as a practice called intersectionality. She defined it first in 1989. And by 1991, she wrote a very famous paper called mapping the margins. We want to understand where the margins are, you want to understand what she’s talking about the mark the margins of mapping the margins are she listed at the beginning of the paper, one, radical feminism, which she decried as white feminism that was disinterested in black women, and to black liberation ism, which she said was black male oriented. And the identity politics around those two things left out black women, that’s the point of intersectionality version 1.0. She then proceeds to give a scathing critique in the style of critical race theory of liberalism and liberal values, saying that they are just a way that oppression has been maintained and hidden, more successfully necessitating a critical theory that can make them visible, that can convince people who think that their lives are fair and equal and good, that their lives actually suck, and that they are under the thumb of systemic oppression under the form of white supremacy and patriarchy, even if they don’t realize that even if they never experienced these things themselves, even if they think that this is mostly a relic of the past with maybe some inertial issues and some occasional ignorant jerks here and there. That’s not how we’re going to think about it anymore. She critiques liberalism, she also critiques post modernism. And she says that what post modernism has gets wrong is that it’s going to deconstruct even


places have systemic oppression. So I’m not making any of this up. I’m not just riffing she actually says this. She then goes on to assert unapologetically that her mission is to give identity politics. First and foremost, she has a very famous paragraph, which she borrowed from bell hooks, that says, there’s something much more important and powerful about the statement, I am black than I am a person who happens to be black, because the second puts universal humanity in front of the identity. That’s what she says. That’s where this comes from. That’s what intersectionality is about, put the identity. First. It’s called identity first, politics. And then at the end of the paper, and a paragraph near the end that puts everything I’m saying into clarity of context. She says that, for her intersectionality is a provisional concept, linking contemporary politics and postmodern theory. Contemporary politics, of course, are those radical feminism radical liberation ism, that she talked about positively throughout the paper while criticizing liberal approaches, like the civil rights movement, is not doing the job as actually succeeding following her mentor Derek Bell, that hiding racism rather than taking a step toward ending racism. This is the birth of woke. The word wasn’t being used then it was a slang term that appeared here and there before, roughly 2008 to 2011 12. But this is the birthplace of woke This is the place where something got stuck into deconstructionism that could not be deconstructed, and it is the experience of systemic oppression by identity. So this is the place where we have to start, we want to understand words like diversity, inclusion, equity, racism, everything, everything. You have to understand that this worldview about power is where they come from. You can’t appeal to the facts, you can’t appeal to reason you can’t appeal to a reasonable person standard or what a fair minded person might think. You can’t appeal to faith. Because those are all applications of power, by a means that people don’t recognize as an application of power and have fooled themselves into believing our methodologically rigorous or objective or, for some other reason legitimate. These are people who have fooled themselves into believing that the power they gave themselves to be authenticators of truth are natural is fooling yourself to believe that they are rigorous is fooling yourself to believe that they are anything other than a base application of identity politics by other means, in particular, white Western, often straight, male ways of knowing. And so, now we have this cultural relativism that is come out of postmodern thinking that one culture does not have the necessary epistemic or ethical tools to judge another culture. And we add in the critical theory, dichotomy of oppressor versus oppressed that drives back to Marx. And there is now an


all the cultural methods of producing knowledge of producing truth of speaking of organizing society, all of them are equal except the one for By straight white men in Europe, under the Enlightenment, that one’s bad, that one’s wrong. And so this is the world that we live in now. So we have this view of power that works this way that it’s always that it’s everywhere. It’s imminent. When there’s an act of racism, the only reason there was an act of racism is because we live in a society that has produced a system that would allow an act of racism to occur. It wouldn’t be possible to be racist for a racist action or act or belief or word, if we lived in a society where it wasn’t permissible. So this is totalitarian. Even if we were to then scrub all of the racist acts and actions, beliefs, words, deeds out of society, though, the system itself being built with racist biases, as they say, would remain racist and racism would still be occurring without a single racist person, act, belief, word, deed anything, this is the view that they have. The system itself is racist because it was formed under the conditions of racist racism by people who didn’t know that they were racist and falsely believe that their objective were objectivity in the words of the now famous author Robin Angelo is something that we should consider neither possible nor desirable. Instead, we should have subjectivism. The subjective experience of the lived reality of systemic oppression is the only and highest truth and it carries with it an ethical imperative to make it visible, and to tear it apart. So I’ll give you an example, within critical race theory, critical race theory is very famous, I know some of you will have heard this example, I’ve given it a number of times too lazy to think of another one. I mean, it works, right, you just keep doing the same thing. So this is how critical race theory since it’s so popular, you need to understand this is how it analyzes the situation. So I want you to envision for a moment that you run a shop or a store or something like a tailor shop, something where you have to come out and work one on one for a number of minutes with each customer as they come in. And through whatever set of circumstances you’re working alone, that day, you’re behind the counter, the bell rings, the door opens, and in very short order to people enter before you can react, but not in a way where you have the impression that they’re together. They just happen to arrive roughly at the same time and one of these people is white, and one of these people is black, you’re the only one there. So you have to make a zero sum decision of who you help first the white person or the black person. Now, the fundamental assumption of critical race theory is that these systems of power are imminent, they are everywhere. They’re always they are permanent. And they bear on every social interaction, every phenomenon, they are present in everything that is the fundamental operating assumption of critical race theory. So the question as our friend Robyn D’Angelo put it is not did racism take place it is how did racism manifest in that situation? That’s a quote. She’s getting this quote multiple times, both in writing and in speech. The question is not did racism take place? But how did racism manifest in that situation? racism is to be assumed. So you now have your choice.

Anybody in here want to go to the white person first? Water shock. Not a single one. Bunch of racists. So you’re racist. You’re all racists. You’re all racist. You know why you’re racist?

Because you think black people can’t be trusted to be left alone in that store for a few minutes. While you help another customer. You think they might steal something? Or maybe you actually wanted to help the white person, you really did. But you didn’t want to be seen helping a white person first you had to perform, you had to pretend that you’re anti racist. Your decision was riddled with racism. The question was not did racism take place? It was how did it manifest in a situation? It’s that you don’t trust black people and you wanted to get them out? You racist? Anybody want to pick the white person now? Still no amazing. look at things pause, pause, pause. Think about what that means. Nobody wants to pick the white person first. That’s the very definition of bias. By the way, every single one of you somehow Intuit that in this new world. A colorblind choice was wrong. None of you want to help the white person first. Well, that’s good, because that would be racist too, by the way, of course, because racism, of course, must be present. It’s not did it take place, but how did it manifest in a situation and it’s obviously because you saw white people’s first class citizens, black people are second class citizens who have to wait or maybe you just prefer working with members of your own race First, if you’re white, or maybe I sent you any number of things. This is the way that These woke critical theories analyze the world. Why? Because one, the systemic idea of power must be present in all things. The job of the critical theorist is to make it visible and to agitate for social activism around it like burning your store down later after they put it on social media. What a racist you were in three, because truth doesn’t matter. There is no truth. objective truth doesn’t matter. Even if we were to ask, Well, what was your motivation? Why did you choose as you chose doesn’t matter. Even if it could be shown by some tests that you were absolutely true doesn’t matter, there’s probably some implicit bias at work. Truth doesn’t matter.

impact, not intent, the impact was racist, because somebody was able to write racism into the story. And that’s all it takes.

This is the woke ideology, everything must be analyzed through power in this way. In other words, everything must be reduced to a simple understanding, a cartoonish understanding of systemic power, that thinks that everything that happens intentionally must have racism in it. And everything that happens that produces disparate outcomes, even if we can find no evidence of racism must be the result of racism, that tuck that is tucked somewhere in all the cracks and corners. It’s a weird room to say this in, but it’s the racism of the gaps. I know that many of you probably heard that God of the gaps thing here or there. It’s a race racism of the gaps. We don’t know why the different the outcomes are different, must be racism, that systemic racism, that’s how you must analyze the world and I’ve focused on racism, but we could do the same thing with sex, with gender, with sexuality with ability status, with fat status with that exasperated etc. intersectionally intersectionally as a whatever you have to whatever your whatever, you know, as a black man, I have to acknowledge that I’m black, and therefore I have a certain understanding of systemic oppression. But as a man, I have to defer to, to my female colleagues, you know, we’ve heard these things before. That’s called engaging positionality. The rule and intersectionality as a practice is that intersectionality must be intentionally engaged. That’s how they make, that’s how you must think about the world. If you grok this, then we can talk about diversity, equity and inclusion, until you grow up until this, you don’t get it. So when I tell you that diversity doesn’t mean, what we think it means, like let’s bring in people with different perspectives. They think that the only different perspectives that could possibly matter are ones rooted in identity. But that’s not even good enough. That’s not even good enough. We have racial minorities, we have women, we have whatever in this room, and I guarantee you, you’re the wrong kind of diversity. You are the wrong kind of diversity because you don’t have authentic diversity. Authentic diversity is that which is in line with that agrees with that has the sophisticated understanding of the critical theory of identity that’s in play. You have to be a critical theorist of identity or you have false consciousness. There’s another idea that sort of traces back to Marx Marx that it wants to in early buy it but the critical theory school really loved it. Angles used it a couple of times wasn’t their thing. False consciousness became big under the Frankfurt School, not under marks, but it did originate there. So you have false consciousness, you have internalized the racist system, you’ve internalized the patriarchal system, you’ve internalized the heteronormative and homophobic system, you have internalized Sis, normativity and transphobia. You’ve internalized these myriad words, you’ve internalized them. And so if you disagree with the critical theory of identity as it applies, you are the wrong kind of diversity. So diversity means hiring critical theorists. That’s what diversity means. And if you don’t understand that, they think in terms of power, you think I’m crazy when I tell you that? not crazy. That’s what they mean. diversity means uniformity of critical theory thought with different colored faces. They need somebody who can give the authentic lived experience of being black and authentic lived experience of being a black woman, an authentic lived experience of being Latino and authentically loved experience of being a gay, Latino, they need the authentic lived experience where authentic means agrees with critical theory. That’s what it means. And you can’t possibly believe me, until you understand that they think only in terms of systemic power. And we could go into a great deal of detail about how there is much value to identity if we had time and we’re interested. Sorry, not in a diversity. There’s much value to diversity, you have this expertise. I have that expertise you came from the farm I came from the city, we have different real different perspectives that bear on something. We can even understand how that can apply sometimes in terms of the experience of being a certain identity group in certain contexts, but those contexts are contextual and fluid and complicated and move through time. That’s not how critical theory sees it. It’s very straightforward. It’s very cut and dry. It’s very cartoonish. And if you don’t agree, you’re the wrong kind of diversity. inclusion. Inclusion sounds

great, let’s

all be included. Let’s we don’t want to make anybody uncomfortable. We don’t want to make anybody want to leave. We don’t want anybody to feel unwelcome. That’s inclusion, let’s include people let’s not exclude people. What does that look like through a lens that understands the world only in terms of systemic power

as related by critical theory where truth doesn’t matter. Anything that could be construed as offensive or uncomfortable to any member of a minority group as they use the language to say

is not inclusive, that has to be stricken. So inclusion means speech codes, that means restricted speech, it means not racial sensitivity, or sex sensitivity or any of these other kinds of sensitivity. It means a very extreme form, in which anybody who could link the thing that was said or done to a system of power upholding a system of power has grounds to tell you that what you said or did was inappropriate and your intentions didn’t matter. So it means severely restricted speech, it means a totalitarian environment in which the views that are considered right and authentic are the only acceptable ones unless you’re asking questions to learn more so says, one of their theorists Barbara Applebaum, and her 2010 book, being white being good, and maybe said that wrong, it’s maybe it’s being good being white, I do it every time. So I don’t want to misquote that it’s one or the other flip a coin. She argues that the only legitimate way to disagree is to ask questions to understand better. What’s another example, though, of something that might make somebody uncomfortable? Well, according to the critical theory that says that we live in a white supremacist hedge, Gemini, the presence of whiteness is everywhere. And this is a this exact a constant toll on the people of color, who have to experience living as a person of color in an oppressive white supremacist society. So you have to set up all black spaces where that presence of whiteness isn’t there. We call that segregation. They call it desegregation. George Orwell would be proud. desegregation is segregation, or segregation is desegregation, however you want to have it. So you have segregated spaces. To help people escape the the permanence of the white male gaze, they sometimes phrase it that way, you have to give them safe spaces as the sort of friendly way to put you know, identity, single identity or mono identity spaces in which they don’t have to have the oppression of being around people who their very presence reinforces the experience of hegemonic power. So the point of the point of these critical theories then is to over sensitize people to language so that I might hear somebody say something, and I think I’m an African American might not like that. And then that person’s out, that person can’t speak, that person has to be silenced, doesn’t matter if a single person ever was offended by it. A good example of that would be master bedrooms, master bedrooms, we can’t have master bedrooms anymore. We have Realty, businesses dropping the term masterbedroom from their their websites from their their listings. Why? Because somebody decided that this term, which was invented in a Sears catalog in the 1920s, obviously must refer to slavery, which it didn’t, therefore, it makes me uncomfortable. So we have to get rid of that. So we have to strike even language that whether it comes corresponds to reality or not, we have to strike out language that somebody could find offensive, even in theory, as long as you have a critical theorist who’s able to figure out that the racism, which must be present somewhere, can be found once it’s found, it’s out. So we have to do that to keep a space inclusive. These arbitrary moving rules, create a system in which everybody’s afraid to speak all the time, because they never know what the wrong thing is. That’s going to get them in trouble or fired or pilloried on social media. And that’s called totalitarianism. And we have to segregate our spaces. Because social justice, obviously, that’s inclusion. And if you don’t understand this word, in terms of the insane idea that everything boils down to these cartoonish power dynamics that had lots more truth in the past, but not even the degree of truth that they’re speaking about now. And almost no truth. Now, if you don’t accept that you can’t understand this. You hear inclusion and you translate it into something more reasonable. You hear diversity, do you think what is good to have different kinds of people around it is good to have the different perspective. Here’s this example of something bad that happened when we didn’t. So diversity and inclusion. Install a totalitarian system of thought, in which we have to hire the party to micromanage every single thing for us. It is a world in which adult human beings to say nothing of children cannot be possibly trusted to talk about identity related issues or even be in the vicinity of one another across identities, and have to be micromanaged by administrative busybodies who love to go to bureaucratic meetings when you don’t, and they can install the policy there. So that’s diversity and inclusion now we can turn to equity. equity is not as big of a lie

as these other two. Equity kind of tells you what it is, it sounds like a nice word. But if you actually just look up social equity theory, which they’ve dropped the social so you can’t look too easily. It means, whereas equality This is pretty close to a quote, whereas equality means that citizens A and B have equal shares. Equity means adjusting the share so that citizens A and B are made equal. It’s equality of outcome enforced equality of outcome. So in practice, it’s going to involve racial quotas, other identity quotas, we see this in practice in California, which has had a law for a little while saying we have to have a female CEO when every company of a certain size, now that you have to have a racial minority on every CCE C suite, sorry, so to see the C suite of every big company not to have a woman, and at least one racial or sexual minority. In this will expand quotas are the thing. This is racial quotas, and sex quotas, and other quotas. It is to enforce equal outcomes. Those equal outcomes are going to be assessed though because they have to make up for the the cruelties and oppressions of history, the unfairness of history, they will be enforced rather generously, in certain directions, and rather tightly and others. So in other words, it will be something like affirmative action combined with reparations without ever having to use either words, so they can keep using those words for other things at the same time. Equity doesn’t mean equality, equity means forcing equal outcomes artificially, we’ve tried this experiment, as a society again, and again and again. And again. And it doesn’t work. It never works. It undermines trust in our institutions, at the very least, it places people who would be better qualified in other in certain sectors and in the wrong sectors, because they have to meet certain quotas. So rather than helping people flourish to the best of their ability, where they would flourish to the best of their ability, you have to stick them like puzzle pieces into places where sometimes it works out great, and sometimes they don’t belong. And meanwhile, making everything fit this preconceived notion. And so you look at this very, very, even still in profit, very friendly way. You say, Oh, well, I don’t think that’s a great idea. But it doesn’t matter under an understanding of systemic racism. By the way, systemic racism means inequity, is there racial inequity exists? There. If there are inequities, there must be systemic racism, they’re identical concepts, the opposite pieces of one another. And so you think, well, maybe that’s fine. Well, if you look at it under a systemic understanding, any cause must be racism. So even if it’s a statistical fluctuation, even if the entire applicant pool was pulled through, and you couldn’t find and that you hired every even minimally qualified person to fill your different boxes, whatever those happen to be, that’s still racism. So you see this a lot in organizations. I know it happens in some churches, where we’re the most dangerous place to be as close to woke, because they’re bending over backwards to make this happen. And they are the ones who get hit the hardest, saying you’re not trying hard enough, because they’re the ones who are showing that they’re going to make that effort. equity is not equality, equity, probably will not work in any case whatsoever. But when you have this systemic understanding of equity, even random fluctuations would be considered racist, just that many applicants this year, and it was a totally random stochastic errors are no mathematician, that happens, doesn’t matter. Just natural variants in the numbers would be enough. So you have to understand then the equity The point is to undo by artificial means systemic inequality, systemic racism, systemic power, it is the tool to unmake the effects of systemic power, believing that if we just have them unmade that everything’s okay. Diversity and Inclusion are the tools that are believed by magic kind of like with the seizing the means of economic production. Here we seize the means of, I guess, bureaucratic production, but also cultural production. We just get everybody believing diversity and inclusion, and equity will follow probably. And if it doesn’t, we’ll adjust the numbers with quotas and things and everything will come out just fine. This is why you see the proposition 16 in California right now on the ballot to remove the anti discrimination language from their state constitution. It is in line with equity. That’s the purpose. So we’re gonna discriminate to get equity. This is what ibram Kendi, another best selling author that’s peddling this stuff for 10s of 1000s of dollars a pop now, keep saying he says that if if anti discrimination produces inequity, then it’s racist. If discrimination produces equity than its anti racist, so we need discrimination. Just like Mike said,

Now, you know, I don’t want to drag this out, you’ve got an idea now of a how to analyze these things and be what these words diversity, equity inclusion that are supposed to talk about mean in practice. The goal I had is for you to be able to understand them, and to be able to start doing this analysis for yourself. So you stop getting played. The words don’t mean what you think they mean, you have to say how would somebody who obsesses about systemic power all the time mean this word, you have to do that or you’re going to miss it every single time. That said, I do want to say that this is like all such movements. In the sense I kind of began with Marx, we saw the attempts to force Marxism with that, you know, on the other side of the Gulag joke I made, you end up having to start applying force, you end up having to start doing things that are distinctly illiberal, distinctly anti liberty, liberty, anti freedom, as I said, totalitarian in order to enforce this, and we’re starting to see very openly this kind of agitation we’ve seen, for example, in the past, you know, to echo what Mike had said earlier, we can say the very postmodern thing we’ve seen people say, Oh, we no longer have to worry about truth theories and false theories, just just what was the exact wording the we need strategic theories, we don’t have to worry about true theories or false theories, just strategic theories. And now this has progressed far beyond that to where the strategic theories people are seeing through them and force becomes necessary. So you have to force segregated spaces, you have to force diversity quotas, you have to force equity, you have to force people to believe, act and do according to the ideology, or you cancel them. whiteness is property so we can burn down a target. whiteness as property is straight out of critical race theory. Therefore, we can seize it, we can seize that property for ourselves. If you want a scary one, we think that the Constitution protects us and all things, we have the Fourth Amendment against the illegal search and seizure. We should all acknowledge at the beginning of every meeting that we live on stolen land, your land was stolen, your property was stolen in the first place. It’s not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to seize stolen property. This ideology subverts the contract that’s there. It changes the meanings of the words according to its obsession with systemic power. And it plays us over and over again. And it is turning violent as that is starting to be seen not to work I actually want to read because I wasn’t going to do this. It’s not quite where I want to want to wrap up, but I want to read to you something and I pardon me to push some buttons or whatever. Michael talked about being able to take you to places where men stood for what they believed and were burned. This is from I forgot what this person’s I didn’t have a chance to look it up on the spot. Again, what this person’s role is, but this is somebody who has administrative bureaucratic power in some capacity, I assure you in she wrote this, I’m assuming something in schools because she were educators. At the beginning. This is a tweet she put out the other day on the sorry a few months ago, educators. What are you burning? Your wife centered curriculum, that Amy Cooper next door if you don’t remember who Amy Cooper is she’s the one that was with the shoes in the New York City Central Park and she had her dog in the birdwatcher and she was accused of racism for saying she was going to call the cops over this altercation they had the Amy Cooper next door. What are you burning? That’s the question. Amy Cooper next door. You’re anti black behavior policies, the school’s racist policies. You’re racist as principal. The funding for the police in schools versus counselors What are you burning? Two of the things she listed are people to the things she lists that are people What are you burning? This isn’t just some random, fringe wacko on on Twitter, we have a situation now where as Michael pointed out, I didn’t tell you the story that two plus two equals five, we’ll spare that, where they’re denying objective truth explicitly for the purpose of saying that objectivity is neither possible nor desirable to the point where they will deny two plus two equals four, and make a fight about it. Michael mentioned various people that he can ask me the nod that quoted this, the Harvard th Chan School of Public Health, promoted that idea that two plus two can in fact equal five. And people who say n equals four are wrong. The Harvard th Chan School of Public Health promoted this idea and shared an article to that effect, which you can look up that was written in Popular Mechanics. Good luck with you. Those are not going to be very popular mechanics.

I don’t think so we can kind of wrap up then. A year ago this weekend, Michael also referenced that we gave a talk in London. That was a year ago this weekend. And I talked about how the point of the woke thing is to enact a social and cultural revolution. It is unlike Marx, who wanted to seize the means of economic production, it is a goal to seize the means of cultural production and flip over society. And they have done this very well. They’ve seized many of our institutions, academia, education, they’re deeply encroaching into faith. They’ve got media, they’ve got their hands on the levers of power and politics. We see states like California, we see whatever’s going on with the with the police doing essentially not being allowed to do anything to deal with the riots in Seattle and Portland, among other places, they have a lot of that power now. And so a year ago, I stood up I said, they want a revolution. We have to fight. And then I said that we’re late to this fight. That was the last thing I said we’re late to this fight. That was a year ago. We are later I’ll stop there. Thank you.