Critical Race Theory (CRT) has consumed all the oxygen in the room recently, but people on both sides of the issue are failing to properly analyze this academic work of contradiction. Let’s examine the basic tenets of the theory according to the authors, courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.
(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.
(3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.
(4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites.
(5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on.
Finally, (6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism.

First and foremost, these pretentiously illustrious scholars do not understand the definition of racism, and are extremely adept at overusing impressive but meaningless words to mask their own ineptitude and stupidity, while trying to advance socially useless liberal studies. The definition of racism was already addressed in “Anti-Racism Is An Oxymoron.”

As pointed out in “It’s Realism, Not Racism,” Merriam-Webster defines racism as a “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. Certainly additional definitions have emerged to accommodate the ideological movements that continually distort a variety of terms and concepts to justify their positions, with racism also defined as prejudice or discrimination. Richard Henry Pratt was the first to utter the word “racism” in 1902 and it centered on how races with lower intellect wouldn’t evolve if segregated. He never used the words “hate” or “exclusion,” which have become synonyms for racism in today’s vernacular.

Interest convergence? Material determinism? More nonsensical and useless academic terminology. Let’s stipulate that the world revolves and evolves around human self-interest and the tendency is for people of one race, any race, to associate with their own — tigers with tigers, lions with lions. Yes, life is that simple!

Then CRT states that “Legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups?” What interests of white groups were served by the Civil Rights Act or Affirmative Action, among others?

Tenet number 4 mentions stereotypes while failing to point out the simple fact that stereotypes, positive or negative, are derived from observations and truth. As an example, the well known Marxist revolutionary Ché Guevara noted that black people have a penchant for frivolity — read “bling” — which is still true in the 21st century.

Then to state that an African-American person — a term created by Jesse Jackson in 1987 to describe black people although North Africans are not black — can be “a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on,” redefines the word “obvious” while adding nothing of value to the topic. Certainly everyone on Earth identifies with multiple groups. And what exactly does gender, sexuality or religion have to do with race? Thus it’s acceptable to use skin color and geography to identify and segregate groups of people, but “Race Is A Social Construct, Unless It Destroys The Progressive Agenda.” The dog chasing its tail!

Lastly, the “voice of colour” thesis states that only those affected by racism can speak about it, although they don’t know what racism is. It’s true that hands-on experience is extremely important, and plumbers will explain plumbing. But doesn’t color in this context refer to race — black, brown and white — and doesn’t that support biology? Who’s paying the salaries of these utterly useless scholars? As a side note, if only skin color separated humans there wouldn’t be a problem,

Here is the logical examination of racism as presented in “Anti-Racism Is An Oxymoron.”

But the “belief” can be easily proven or dismantled by a simple measurement: socio-techno-economic achievement. Either race X is superior to race Y as determined by their respective socio-techno-economic achievement over centuries, or it isn’t. Every time that this simple measurement is introduced into the conversation, a blame game ensues, faulting slavery and exploitation as primary causes for lower or virtually non-existent intellectual output. The problem with that defense is that it solidifies the concept of racism, because obviously race X always dominates race Y, with the latter lacking the ability to overcome the obstacles.

The overall CRT theme is that minorities — black and brown people — are oppressed and helpless as a result of the actions and inactions of white people, while stating that we’re all intellectually equal regardless of race, defying the claim that race doesn’t exist because it’s a social construct. Why can’t minorities be problem solvers if they possess the same intellect? And what exactly have black and brown people produced in countries where they are the majority? Liberia, Haiti, Congo, Zimbabwe?

Here are the three simple questions that one needs to easily defeat Critical Race Theory and the idiots that embrace it:

1. How many countries and societies did non-white people build on their own that have provided economic opportunity and welfare for outsiders and enticed Caucasians to migrate to those wonderful locations?
2. How many Caucasians inside and outside of Western civilization blame other races/ethnic groups for their lack of success?
3. Assuming that all of us come from caves, who provided economic opportunity and welfare for Caucasians? The Martians?

What exactly is Critical Race Theory? It boils down to one thing: “Envy of Human Achievement Triggers Hate And Conflict.”

---