Critical Race Theory Proponents Want Freedom of Speech Taken from Whites
Executive Summary
- Critical Race Theory requires whites to take their freedom of speech from them, while non-whites keep freedom of speech.
- Under CRT, anyone who disagrees with CRT is a racist.
Introduction
Critical Race Theory is an irrational power-based strategy to gain power for non-whites in white societies. CRT is based upon a combination of making false claims (as evidence is a white construct) and being able to personally attack anyone who questions assertions by non-whites by removing the freedom of speech protections for whites. We begin by analyzing the speech of a CRT adherent, Justin Trudeau, the PM of Canada, and get into the evidence for CRT’s assertions that whites must have their freedom of speech curtailed.
Attempting to Shut Down Speech of the Trucker Convoy by Smearing Them as Racists
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had no interest in debating the evidence for the covid vaccine mandates for truckers (where are none). Therefore Trudeau decided instead to smear the truckers as racists.
The accusation that the truck drivers and farmers were racists was very odd. Trudeau also said that the truckers had “unacceptable views,” but he did not say which ones. However, the more I looked into Trudeau’s previous statements, the more a pattern emerged regarding accusing others of racism.
Justin Trudeau’s Pattern of Calling Those That Disagree With Him Racists
This woman questions him about the money required to support refugees. Instead of debating the topic, Trudeau again decides the best argument would be to attack the woman and call her a racist personally.
Trudeau then told the woman that she had “no place in Canada.” This does not appear to comport with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom. Trudeau has a problem with anyone disagreeing with him and believes a) he has the right as Prime Minister to attack anyone as a response to a question personally, and b) that he can tell Canadians that disagree with him that it is time that they leave Canada.
Trudeau Use of Critical Race Theory’s Methods to Silence Dissent
Trudeau repeatedly uses concepts and terms that are WOKE but dishonest. Trudeau has called the fact that people had to see a Swastica or Confederate flag as “violence.” This is the phrasing of the brainless left and is part of Critical Race Theory.
Method #1: Debate is a White Construct
Critical Race Theory declares that rational debate is a white construct, covered in the article Critical Race Theory Shows the How Diversity Means Anti White Ideas.
Method #2: Making Assertions is About Gaining Power, Not What is True
- Critical Race Theory (CRT) asserts that everything is simply about power.
- CRT further proposes a double standard where non-whites have freedom of speech, but whites do not.
Freedom of Speech Works to Fight the Status Quo in All Areas of Society Except Race?
This is explained in the following quotation.
CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the (US) First Amendment. For example, instead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law in general or of the First Amendment in particular; some speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech. – The First Amendment Encyclopedia
What is curious about this assertion is that the First Amendment only seems to be a problem when it comes to debates on race. There are an enormous number of status quo questions when it comes to US society, and freedom of speech is a primary tool that helps change the status quo, in fact, it is easily the most important tool. Freedom of speech helps the lower-powered against the more highly powered or the elites, this is why freedom of speech is so rare in the world.
Yet CRT promotes the idea that in one case, race, freedom of speech is used as a tool to support the status quo. This is not only contrary to how freedom of speech has been used in US history but is contrary to freedom of speech and the lack of freedom of speech globally. As is normally the case, CRT proponents don’t bother providing evidence, as evidence is not part of CRT.
CRT proponents merely assert that freedom of speech defends the status quo in the case of debates on race. What is equally curious is as CRT declares within their doctrine that their philosophy is to make false claims and that all assertions are about gaining power, why would anyone accept an assertion from CRT?
CRT’s Demand: All Non-Whites or Non-White Allies Lose Their Freedom of Speech
What CRT demands is almost difficult to believe, however, their demand is that everyone that disagrees with both CRT and non-whites loses their freedom of speech.
If the US First Amendment were to be rewritten by CRT proponents it would look like the following.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech by non-whites, or of the non-white press; or the right of the non-white people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The CRT First Amendment). All speech by whites in the society is allowed or denyed by whether non-whites agree that the speech can be shared.
A Society Where Non Whites Control Everything That is Allowed to be Published or Viewed
The following quote explains more regarding the logic of CRT proponents.
In general, these scholars argue that there is no societal value in protecting speech that targets already oppressed groups. They also question the logic of using the First Amendment to protect speech that not only has no social value, but also is socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups. – The First Amendment Encyclopedia
What is curious is that CRT proponents claim to know the societal value of speech. No doubt, any speech that disagrees with CRT is not of any societal value. As for speech that is socially or psychologically damaging, again, this plays into the category of speech CRT adherents or non-whites being “violence.” Using this logic any speech could be restricted. All that would have to happen is a (non-white) person would have to state that they were psychologically damaged. If there were 100 non-whites, but even one non-white stated that they were psychologically damaged by the speech, then the speech would have to be censored. This would create a government body that would take requests from non-whites about speech that was psychologically damaging, and use the government’s legal power to delete articles from the internet, movies from YouTube, etc. This would create a system of ending censorship where non-whites would decide if anything could be published.
CRT’s Strategy of Making False Statements to Gain Power
CRT’s strategy is to make assertions that are often not true, and when questioned, to call the person who disagrees a name, either a sexist or a racist, etc…
Under CRT, any oppressed minority (that is non-white) can make any false assertion they wish, and a white person’s contradiction of a false assertion is categorized as hate speech.
Trudeau’s Adoption of CRT’s Methods
Trudeau has incorporated CRT into the Canadian government. See the following quotation.
It turns out that in 2021, Canada’s Liberal government quietly interjected CRT into federal government training materials.
Within government-authorized materials on racism, the term “whiteness” is defined as “specific dimensions of racism that serves to elevate white people over people of colour.”
In the meantime, politicians like Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh inform Canadians that “systemic racism” against racialized citizens forms the core of our society. – CapforCanada
CRT promotes making baseless claims under the assumption that rational thought is white and that all assertions are only made to gain power.
Therefore, when Trudeau says the truckers and farmers in the Freedom Convoy are racists, he does not do it because he thinks it is true, but because it allows him to stigmatize the protesters and gain power.
CRT Pushes to Create Hate Speech Categorization of White Speech
The objective of CRT is to strip freedom of speech from whites in the US, or at least whites that disagree with non-whites. Whites that agree with non-whites are allowed to keep their freedom of speech as they are “allies.”
This is explained in the following quotation.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), which seemingly closed the door on hate speech regulation, Delgado continued to publish extensively on the legality and necessity of hate speech regulation. Relying heavily on social scientific data, Delgado outlined the harm caused by racist speech and developed a tort action for racial insults that he believes could pass First Amendment scrutiny.
Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence are two more early CRT proponents of hate speech regulation. Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.
Lawrence contends that the way in which scholars and jurists enter the hate speech debate “makes heroes out of bigots and fans the flames of racial violence” (Lawrence 1990: 438). According to him, hate speech violates the Fourteenth Amendment. – The First Amendment Encyclopedia
What is the Operating Definition of Hate Speech?: Non-White Approved Speech
The definition of hate speech does not match the term. Hate speech should be speech that is hateful, but that is not what CRT proponents mean when they use the term.
The operational purpose of hate speech is speech by whites that non-whites do not like. Hate speech only applies to the speech of whites. Therefore it is not whether the speech is itself hateful, but whether the speech is approved by non-whites. So to be accurate, the term would be something more like “Non White Approved Speech.”
CRT proponents never discuss limiting the speech of non-whites, and the entire focus of hate speech is on white speech.
Conclusion
CRT has two basic modes in his debate.
- The first is to assertions without explanation and without worrying if his assertion is true. What is true or false is not essential in the philosophy of CRT. All speech is about gaining power.
- His second mode is to attack the person they are debating personally, and their favorite personal attack is that the person they are debating is a racist. CRT proponents deny the rights to non-whites or those non-whites that are not “allies” to have freedom of speech.
These are the method of debate approved by CRT. CRT was entirely created by blacks. However, CRT holds a strong appeal to all non-whites that live in white countries. If you can legally restrict the speech of others, that is a powerful motivator to do so. It is quite addictive.
The Muslim Adoption of Hate Speech
Muslims have already latched onto CRT to make all anti-Islamic statements or simply include quotations from the Koran, Hadith, or Sira as hate speech. Once again, the definition of hate speech for Muslims is “Speech by Non-Muslims That Muslims Do Not Like.”
CRT is a pathway to de-Westernizing a Western civilization.