________
BY GILAD ATZMON • AUGUST 20, 2021 • 125 COMMENTS
There is a growing debate in the USA about Critical Race Theory (CRT). Peculiarly enough, CRT's opponents insist that the 'Marxist' discourse must be uprooted from American culture and the education system. I am puzzled by it, as I cannot think of anything more removed from Marx's thinking than CRT.
Kabbalists Publicly Discuss Their Plot to Kill Millions (encore)
A Jewish Prayer to Absolve All VowsSource: The Unz Review
BY GILAD ATZMON • AUGUST 20, 2021 • 125 COMMENTS
Marx offered an economic analysis based on class division. For Marx, those at the bottom of the class stratum were destined to unite regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Marx as such was race-blind. However, his vision was unifying as far as at least the working class are concerned. But Critical Race Theory aims in the complete opposite direction. CRT's advocates believe that people are and should be defined politically by their biology: by their skin colour, often by their gender and/or sexual orientation. CRT attempts to fight racism, not by eliminating it but actually elevating biological determinism into a constant battleground.
Critical race theorists aren't too original on that biological determinist front. Already in the late 19th century, Zionism called the Jews to identify politically with their biology. Hitler's call for the Aryan people to do the same happened about two decades later. Ironically, even the so-called Jewish 'anti' racists within the 'Jews only' anti-Zionist political cells (such as JVP, JVL, IJAN) follow the exact Zionist and Hitlerian agenda. They also insist on identifying politically and ideologically as 'a race.'"
One may wonder at this stage why people within the conservative right refer to CRT as 'Marxist' despite it having nothing to do with Marx and having much to do (ideologically) with Zionism and Hitlerian biologism. One option is that people within the American Right believe that the reference to Marx communicates well with their supporting crowd. Another slightly less genuine option is that Marx is a code name for a 'subversive Jew-related discourse.' The American conservative universe is largely inspired by Israeli nationalism, however it is disgusted by Soros-type cosmopolitan interventionism. The American Right may be using codified language to tackle its own paralysis. It clearly struggles to call a spade a spade.
Considering the above it is fascinating to examine the Jewish American take on the CRT debate.
Last month Jewish Historian Henry Abramson used the Jewish Telegraphic Agency platform to inform us that "anyone teaching the past by skipping over the unpleasant parts isn't teaching history. They are engaged in propaganda." This firm statement took me by surprise. Like Abramson, I oppose all forms of memory laws that restrict the free historical discussion. Yet, Jewish institutions are invested heavily in policing the historical debate. They often castigate as Holocaust deniers everyone who dares to question the primacy of Jewish suffering or even offer a slightly unorthodox vision of WWII. The Jewish intellectual tradition isn't famous for its list of historical texts either, quite the opposite. There is a complete lack of Judaic historical texts in between Flavius Josephus (AD37-AD100) and Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891). The rabbinical universe has tended to skip the historical tradition because the Talmud and Torah are there to determine the manner in which Jews react to the universe around them. Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has pointed out that the Jews and Zionists in particular largely invent their past to fit with their political, existential, and spiritual interests. Maybe it shouldn't be down to Jewish institutions to preach how to discuss the past.
Abramson is upset by the fact that in "nearly two dozen states, the movement to impose restrictions on the teaching of history is gaining momentum." Abramson is also upset by the new Polish memory law and Putin dictating a vision of the Holodomor. Maybe before I delve into Abramson's concern, I should mention that using Google search, I didn't manage to find any opposition made by Abramson to the Israeli Nakba Law that similarly restricts the discussion on the Israeli 1948 ethnic cleansing crime.
Abramson claims that opponents of CRT attempt to avoid the discussion over the "controversial and painful moments in America's history." I am not sure that this is the case. I am not sure that America can or even intends to deny its problematic abusive past, but I do know that every black academic who attempted to discuss the role of Jews in the African slave trade has witnessed hell breaking loose. I highly recommend Abramson and everyone else read Prof. Tony Martin's spectacular The Jewish Onslaught, a reportage of an orchestrated and abusive Jewish institutional campaign against a Black scholar who didn't follow the script and tried to examine what was the role of some Jews in the African Slave Trade.
For Abramson and others, CRT is a study of the impact of systemic racism. It is the adherence to the belief "that the legacy of slavery is baked into American society and culture to such a degree that African-Americans continue to suffer long-term, systemic economic harm." It suggests that discussing reparations should be on the national agenda.
The truth of the matter is that many of those who oppose CRT would agree with Abramson that racism is alive and kicking in the USA. A few may even suggest using America's aid to Israel as reparation for the black slavery's offspring. Would the JTA, AIPAC or Abramson join such a call for overdue justice? I doubt it.
Please go to The Unz Review to read the entire article.
Critical race theorists aren't too original on that biological determinist front. Already in the late 19th century, Zionism called the Jews to identify politically with their biology. Hitler's call for the Aryan people to do the same happened about two decades later. Ironically, even the so-called Jewish 'anti' racists within the 'Jews only' anti-Zionist political cells (such as JVP, JVL, IJAN) follow the exact Zionist and Hitlerian agenda. They also insist on identifying politically and ideologically as 'a race.'"
One may wonder at this stage why people within the conservative right refer to CRT as 'Marxist' despite it having nothing to do with Marx and having much to do (ideologically) with Zionism and Hitlerian biologism. One option is that people within the American Right believe that the reference to Marx communicates well with their supporting crowd. Another slightly less genuine option is that Marx is a code name for a 'subversive Jew-related discourse.' The American conservative universe is largely inspired by Israeli nationalism, however it is disgusted by Soros-type cosmopolitan interventionism. The American Right may be using codified language to tackle its own paralysis. It clearly struggles to call a spade a spade.
Considering the above it is fascinating to examine the Jewish American take on the CRT debate.
Last month Jewish Historian Henry Abramson used the Jewish Telegraphic Agency platform to inform us that "anyone teaching the past by skipping over the unpleasant parts isn't teaching history. They are engaged in propaganda." This firm statement took me by surprise. Like Abramson, I oppose all forms of memory laws that restrict the free historical discussion. Yet, Jewish institutions are invested heavily in policing the historical debate. They often castigate as Holocaust deniers everyone who dares to question the primacy of Jewish suffering or even offer a slightly unorthodox vision of WWII. The Jewish intellectual tradition isn't famous for its list of historical texts either, quite the opposite. There is a complete lack of Judaic historical texts in between Flavius Josephus (AD37-AD100) and Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891). The rabbinical universe has tended to skip the historical tradition because the Talmud and Torah are there to determine the manner in which Jews react to the universe around them. Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has pointed out that the Jews and Zionists in particular largely invent their past to fit with their political, existential, and spiritual interests. Maybe it shouldn't be down to Jewish institutions to preach how to discuss the past.
Abramson is upset by the fact that in "nearly two dozen states, the movement to impose restrictions on the teaching of history is gaining momentum." Abramson is also upset by the new Polish memory law and Putin dictating a vision of the Holodomor. Maybe before I delve into Abramson's concern, I should mention that using Google search, I didn't manage to find any opposition made by Abramson to the Israeli Nakba Law that similarly restricts the discussion on the Israeli 1948 ethnic cleansing crime.
Abramson claims that opponents of CRT attempt to avoid the discussion over the "controversial and painful moments in America's history." I am not sure that this is the case. I am not sure that America can or even intends to deny its problematic abusive past, but I do know that every black academic who attempted to discuss the role of Jews in the African slave trade has witnessed hell breaking loose. I highly recommend Abramson and everyone else read Prof. Tony Martin's spectacular The Jewish Onslaught, a reportage of an orchestrated and abusive Jewish institutional campaign against a Black scholar who didn't follow the script and tried to examine what was the role of some Jews in the African Slave Trade.
For Abramson and others, CRT is a study of the impact of systemic racism. It is the adherence to the belief "that the legacy of slavery is baked into American society and culture to such a degree that African-Americans continue to suffer long-term, systemic economic harm." It suggests that discussing reparations should be on the national agenda.
The truth of the matter is that many of those who oppose CRT would agree with Abramson that racism is alive and kicking in the USA. A few may even suggest using America's aid to Israel as reparation for the black slavery's offspring. Would the JTA, AIPAC or Abramson join such a call for overdue justice? I doubt it.
Please go to The Unz Review to read the entire article.
________
The Jewish project in Poland: What we are seeing between Poland and the US is likely related to how the Polish political leadership views Jewish history (see New Polish Law Denies Justice to Holocaust Victims) with Poland introducing what are called "Memory Laws." The Russians have no ambitions to invade Poland. That is just another excuse for NATO's continued existence. This isn't "America" deciding this military policy towards Poland, it is another example of how Israel is running US foreign policy.
The Jewish project in Poland: What we are seeing between Poland and the US is likely related to how the Polish political leadership views Jewish history (see New Polish Law Denies Justice to Holocaust Victims) with Poland introducing what are called "Memory Laws." The Russians have no ambitions to invade Poland. That is just another excuse for NATO's continued existence. This isn't "America" deciding this military policy towards Poland, it is another example of how Israel is running US foreign policy.
Poland is invoking the wrath of Jews and Israel:
Memory laws being passed in Poland:
Related:
Kabbalists Publicly Discuss Their Plot to Kill Millions (encore)
More:
Much of American foreign policy (subverted for example with agents-in-place like the proxy Kamala Harris) is also coming through British intelligence networks connected to banking and finance concerning Israel:
Israel and these networks have been pillaging America for the past 70 years:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.