The Democratic party and "the left" are not the same things. Democrats are a center-right party, and Republicans are looney-tunes right. The left has almost no power in America right now, and only a few elected officials they can point to. Furthermore, just because the Democrats haven't done an especially good job doesn't mean that it's worth trying out Republicans' ideas. They're a nakedly racist party whose constituents expect increased inequality.

This is another one of these narratives that's built upon revisionism, but widely accepted.

The US political ideology, by and large, is based up on liberalism. A spectrum between progressive liberals and conservative liberals. So when I say left, I'm talking about really progressive liberals, even if you want to use the term neoliberalism.

The two political parties mostly represent the populist interpretations of these bents of mind. The challenge we have currently, the American liberal right succumbed to a populist idiot. The American liberal left is providing a permissible environment for radical authoritarian Marxism/neo-marxism to infiltrate our institutions. Those American progressive liberals aren't to be trusted in regards to race, but those are precisely the ones that allows your ideology to percolate, unchained. It was chained to academia, not anymore.

The American left has failed in major metropolitan cities. Radical Marxism/neo-marxism (or whatever it is you want to call it) was previously rejected by American liberalism, and it's going to be rejected again, and there's very good reasons for that.

If you were truly coming from the left, you'd be coming from a libertarian perspective. But you're coming from a fascist perspective, but I get you don't think fascism is an applicable way to describe the hard left, because you think government control (whether you think that's social engineering or regulations) is freedom.

lol, "Guys, guys, the real left is libertarianism!!!!!" Basically no one agrees with your definitions, including self-identified libertarians. The extent of self-identified libertarianism in the US is racists who use legal weed for cover.

You're talking about libertarian populism. Libertarianism and anarchy are similar. I think even microbet would disagree with your characterization of libertarianism as well, ideologically speaking, not politically.

It's actually not surprising racist would go to the party where they're allowed to be the most permissive... As do fascists go to the political party where they're allowed to be the most permissive.

Because rural America is vibrant and booming right now.

Need better policies not worse ideology. I'm not making a case for republicans, I'm making a case for Democrats to start listening to smarter people. Actually making that same case for Republicans too.

the party that did everything in its power to beat the most milquetoast of Progressive semi-socialists in Bernie Sanders, and who is doing everything it can to destroy its most Progressive elected officials like Ilhan (look at how much money was funneled to her primary opponents, look at the censuring BS going on now) and AOC (again, look at how the party tried to oust her in the primary) is actually a far left organization attempting to turn the country Marxist?

like I always say (or proly just heard from someone and stole), if the Dems were nearly like the right portrays they would actually be amazing.

They will always show you who the real racists are.

“Parents who want their kids to take classes that are actually challenging and stimulating—and populated with similarly gifted students—are not racist. They are not perpetuating systemic racism. If anything, the implicit assumption that only kids of a certain race can thrive under such conditions is racist.”

Well, Democrats aren't dumb. They're not going to let a socialist take over the political party, it'd be political suicide. This is why you have this assault on public education right now to indoctrinate school children into believing every system is racist, every person is racist...

As I said before, critical theory is just leveraging identity to push Marxism. It sells because the virtue it's selling is appealing, and somewhat hides the Marxism to the masses. To the point the people who buy into this stuff don't even realize it is marxist, i.e. the young activist.

How is that an implicit assumption? Believing that honours programs systemically discriminate against minorities isn't remotely the same as believing no minorities could thrive in such a program.

What are your thoughts on the recitation of the pledge of allegiance every day?

no. its leveraging identity to deny Marxism. to deny class based solutions. and you are actually kinda close to getting it. but the reason the Dem leaders are pushing this stuff is bc it can be construed as implicitly advocating that there are no real solutions. and that the people, black and white, indeed do not have agency.

but Marxism does advocate for solutions and actions. at its most basic level, it is about a reallocation of resources BACK to the people. to the people who create them. the framework is used to both explain the situation and the reason why there is so much suffering in a capitalist world where there are plenty of resources, and also offers its own solutions on how to overcome it.

now, while I think that CRT can be construed to demotivate action, and I do think that our leaders will promote that, I dont think that the founders and initial leaders put it out there with such an idea.

the first step in rectifying anything is to understand it. understanding how the systemic racism in our society oppresses people is necessary to fix it. this is trivial and obv. and a deeper understanding shows the relationship between capitalism and racism. that is a "Marxist" interpretation but you dont need to be Marxist to see it and plenty of non-Marxists realized it pretty damn quick.

there has been a single time in my life where I ignored a problem and denied its existence and it ended up going away. thats what you advocate here.

also, your whole secret Marxist thought infiltration is pretty damn out nuts. I thought I was the conspiracist around here (with apologies to LB).

Apparently CRT's Marxist agenda is so well hidden even the Marxists can't see it:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...57743819871318

I have no issues with it.

I think it's obvious that the various splinters of Marxism are going to disagree with each other and look to distance themselves from each other.

Also, it does have a program. Critical Pedology.


Most of the Marxist criticism you can cite is just that, criticism. It really doesn't do anything to distinguish it from Marxian analysis.

It's not a conspiracy. Just a propagation of an ideology that it thinks it's invented a better version of Marxism. So much so it can distance itself from Marxism.


There's no compromising with CRT, critical theory. The system is racist (i.e. terrible), no matter what. It's impossible for it not to be terrible.

You can find plenty of critical social theorist literature undermining every single liberal value.

Of course not, because it's obvious to anyone here that you aren't really making a principled stand against indoctrination or praxis in public education, or in favor of "liberal values," whatever you think those are. You just oppose racial equality.

Well you're also making the case that if policy/law falls short on delivering--then something probably needs to change. If the civil rights act etc haven't fully delivered--isn't it kinda natural that people would be looking for other ways to solve the problems the orig. law set out to tackle? Bring a better version to the table and let the market decide.

There's a difference between having a different idea or policy, and trashing the entire system. Again, critical theory, and critical race theory, there's no compromise.

American liberalism is a futile effort. Every single system, value, etc is designed to be racist. Except for their ideas. Any objection to that makes you upholding white supremacy.

"Design" being the operative word. It's structurally flawed. The only logical conclusion is to destroy it and rebuild.

Other ideas aren't allowed. I presented many areas to focus on, and you keep going back to this thing where there's nobody presenting any other ideas.

Follow this kid he's got great ideas:

There's a certain deranged absurdity to a bunch of people telling a bunch of other people, who they don't know, what their identity is, and if they don't accept it... Guess what?

Yup. And that's really the main political story right now. Democrats are trying to expand and improve the legacy of Civil Rights with things like the For the People Act and Republicans are trying to undo it with voting restrictions often designed to make it harder for black people to vote based on lies about election stealing. Conservatives will get crushed on this if they talk about it directly so you have the largely trumped up critical race theory boogeyman, which going by generic ballot polling is also losing pretty badly.

I love that this is right below the Washington Post piece.

Of course that clip doesn't make a ton of sense. Would be much closer to reality if it was set in the white American south and increasingly rural America in all regions.