An excerpt:

How is it possible to debate Critical Race Theory yet fail to mention its salient characteristic—that it is exclusively and ethnocidally anti-white?

Easily, if one is a Beltway conservative. They complain a lot about Critical Race Theory, and construct elaborate theories around its crass cornerstone, yet seem constitutionally or congenitally incapable of calling it what it is: anti-white agitprop.

One Federalist piece, “Critical Race Theory Is A Classic Communist Divide-And-Conquer Tactic,” brings it back to communism. Quite how this adds up is unclear, but the author decries a way of thinking that exploits the amorphous “tragedy of racial divisions in America.” In essence, some bad people with a communistic manual and mindset aren’t interested in healing us. Boohoo.

Really? Did communism, an equal-opportunity oppressor, revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites?

Western democracies are third-way political and economic systems. They are already heavily socialized. Once Western societies go from third way to third world, debate over communism will cease, for communism will have arrived.

In other words, dissecting and decrying communism is an ideological luxury, the province of relatively wealthy, stable, developed democracies.

America is indeed racially divided. Blacks, for the most, hate whites for a variety of unjust reasons, not least the incessant, institutionalized propagandizing by other progressive whites. They want to hurt them and make them pay. For what? For everything; for whatever is wrong with their lives. Deal with this and reject it, Beltway boy. Communism is but an intellectual crutch.

By deferring to communism and ducking anti-white animus, the ever-quaking conservatives cloak themselves in the raiment of respectable argument.

Then there is that Uriah Heep like obsequiousness. Going by the aforementioned Federalist writer, conservatives refuse to even take credit for the “oppressive” culture for which Europeans are being berated. Ludicrously, they universalize the creed, the Protestant Ethic.

Recall the “Smithsonian display on whiteness” that condemned as “white” all elements of a civilized society, including politeness, hard work, self-reliance, logic, planning, delayed gratification, and family cohesion.

“None of those are ‘white’ values,” assures our Federalist apologist , as she criticizes Critical Race Theory for framing them as white.

Imagine being so obsequious and apologetic as to wash your hands of a really cool thing you invented, evolved or were born into: Western civilization. …

… READ the rest. NEW COLUMN is “How Real Men (And A Woman) Respond To Systemic Anti-Whiteness.”

It is on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com, American Renaissance, and Newsroom For American And European Based Citizens.

UPDATE:

animalogic on Unz Review makes good points:

October 16, 2020 at 6:10 am GMT • 100 Words ?

Good article Ilana. Linking critical race theory (CRT) to communism is not based on facts (communism is totally based on materialist philosophy, not the anti-empiricist, anti-science, & a priori nonsense of CRT). Nor is it useful: it clouds the CRT issue & sends it off down a cul-de-sac.
Its also vital to not deflect from the fundamental truth that CRT is in its essence anti-white racism.

Andrew Breitbart’s Call To Arms: “FUCK YOU. WAR.”

Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Liberty, Propaganda, Race, Racism, War

With Andrew Breitbart it was biblical.

Indeed, the only response to those who accuse me of racism because I don’t think like they do or do as they do is:

“FUCK YOU. WAR.”

God bless Andrew Breitbart. May he continue to rage, rage from the grave.

That and this. READ:

• “Systemic Racism’ Or Systemic Rubbish?”
• “Was The Cop’s Knee On George Floyd’s Neck Racism? No!”
• “Ethnocidal ‘Critical Race Theory’ Is Upon Us Like White On Rice”
• “Racist Theory Robs And Rapes Reality”

UPDATE (11/10): Andrew Breitbart’s Call To Arms is now ours.

UPDATED (10/14): No Notes, No Nonsense: The Genius Of Amy Coney Barrett

Argument, Constitution, Democracy, Federalism, Intelligence, Law, Reason, The Courts

Leave a reply

After hysterical preludes, Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota, questioned Amy Coney Barrett. I feared Barret’s tart tones—the American woman’s gravelly, vocal fry of a voice—would drive one to distraction, but she’s brilliant. Barrett looks disarmingly sweet and girly, but her replies are gloriously pointed and cerebral.

Advisory opinions are prohibited on the Court, Judge Coney Barrett teaches, as she explains a “concrete” as opposed to a “procedural” or “abstract” injury to the plaintiff. Her duty, as she sees it, is to address “concrete” wrongs, only, and in accordance with democratically-enacted law.

To the question of, “Why fight the Affordable Care Act, Amy Coney Barrett answered: “Ask the litigants. I don’t know.” Genius, because her replies are meta: They nail down the role of the SCOTUS in the federal scheme.

No doubt, Amy Coney Barrett will be the best mind on the SCOTUS! Her analytical reasoning—construction of an argument, the way she seals it logically, her preference for higher-order, principle- and process-oriented thinking, makes Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito and Breyer pale by comparison. (Roberts is oriented toward administrative thinking; he has the mind of a functionary of the managerial State. As I pointed out in 2005, “Roberts is flummoxed by first-principle quandaries,” whereas first principles is Coney Barrett’s thing.)

For obvious reasons, Sonia Sotomayor was left off my just-cited list of SCOTUS justices whom Amy Coney Barrett easily usurps. An affirmative action baby (her term for herself), Sotomayor was advised to read children’s classics and basic grammar books during her summers, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton University. READ.

Most conservatives are like liberals on this topic. Nobody but myself has written extensively in the traditionally Szaszian mode. https://t.co/WGoYWcF3Dg https://t.co/ZhnMu3ZT2M

— ILANA Mercer (@IlanaMercer) October 13, 2020

SUMMARY OF SEN. BLUMENTHAL'S QUESTIONING OF ACB: Dems think violent felons should be allowed to vote, but that a man convicted of selling fraudulent foot inserts should not be allowed to own a gun.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 13, 2020

UPDATE (10/14):

Lots of cringe-worthy cliches and schmaltz came with the “quizzing” by Joni Ernst of Amy Coney Barrett. On being a mom, advice to young girls, exercise, role models. There is not daylight between Republican and liberal women, when it comes to this mushy drivel.

American Justices Should Be Less Notorious, Even Anonymous

America, Celebrity, Federalism, Justice, Law, Pop-Culture, The Courts

1 Reply

About the stardom Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a quiet, reclusive and rather thoughtful jurist, achieved, the Economist writes:

AT THE TIME of her death, Ruth Bader Ginsburg featured on more than 3,000 pieces of memorabilia which were for sale on Amazon.com. Fans of “Notorious RBG” could buy earrings, mugs, babygrows, fitness manuals and Christmas decorations (“Merry Resistmas!”), all bearing her face.
something has gone wrong with America’s system of checks and balances. The United States is the only democracy in the world where judges enjoy such celebrity, or where their medical updates are a topic of national importance. This fascination is not healthy.

The Supreme Court is not elected. Yet its power is ultimately founded on the trust and consent of Americans who believe that its decisions are impartial and grounded in law, not party. The more brazenly parties attempt to capture it as the choicest political prize, the less legitimate it will be. Imagine that a court judgment determines who wins November’s election. …

There is a better way. America is the only democracy where judges on the highest court have unlimited terms. In Germany constitutional-court judges sit for 12 years. If America had 18-year non-renewable terms, each four-year presidency would yield two new justices. It would end the spectacle of judges trying to game the ideology of their successor by choosing when they retire. And it would help make the court a bit less central to American politics—and thus more central to American law. Justice Ginsburg was a great jurist. A fitting tribute to this notorious judge would be to make her the court’s last superstar. ?

The problem is that the entire federal system is broken, in tatters. It’s now down to brute-force tactics, to winning. Bader Ginburg knew it. “In her dissents she sometimes appealed to Congress to correct the law.” She didn’t necessarily think it was SCOTUS’ role. (See: Obituary.)

At heart she was still what she had always been, a judicial minimalist. She was stunned by the lack of caution in the Roe v Wade ruling of 1973 that legalised abortion; though she certainly approved of the outcome, reform should have come through state legislatures, where it was slowly starting to appear. She was shocked too when the court, while upholding Obamacare, found it illegal under the commerce clause of the constitution; that had been Congress’s domain since the 1930s. In her dissents she sometimes appealed to Congress to correct the law and occasionally, to her delight, it did.

SEE: “How to make American judges less notorious: Supreme Court judges should be term-limited