Heads Up! The New School Year Will See the Ruling Class Resume Using CRT to Pit Us Against Each Other by Race
Let's identify, and expose, the divisive ruling class CRT scheme
Heads up! The beginning of the new school year will see the ruling class resume using race to pit have-nots against have-nots, as it has been doing for hundreds of years in the United States (and the earlier Colonies). Let’s identify, and expose, the ruling class’s divisive CRT scheme, which I take a close look at below.
The ruling class’s 21st century, new and improved, method for pitting us against each other along race lines with CRT (Critical Race Theory) is pretty simple. Here’s how it works:
First, censor—absolutely and 100%—the key truth about racial discrimination, which is that its purpose is to destroy the solidarity of ALL the have-nots in order to make it possible for the wealthy upper class to oppress and get rich off of ALL the have-nots. Racial discrimination does this by treating non-whites worse than whites and then telling the white have-nots that this benefits them and that the non-whites are less worthy and deserving than whites. This creates non-white resentment against whites and fear of them, while also making white have-nots have contempt for non-whites and view their struggles against racial discrimination as unjust or even threatening. This mutual fear and resentment undermines solidarity, which is the purpose of racial discrimination, and it harms ALL races of have-nots; it does not benefit white have-nots. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained this in his famous 1965 Selma Alabama speech about how the racist Jim Crow laws HARMED, not benefited, the poor whites; you can listen to and read that speech here. Frederick Douglass in his My Bondage and My Freedom spells out anti-working-class (all races) PURPOSE of racial discrimination, writing:
"The slaveholders, with a craftiness peculiar to themselves, by encouraging the enmity of the poor, laboring white man against the blacks, succeeds in making the said white man almost as much a slave as the black slave himself. The difference between the white slave, and the black slave, is this: the latter belongs to one slaveholder, and the former belongs to all the slaveholders, collectively. The white slave has taken from him, by indirection, what the black slave has taken from him directly, and without ceremony. Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers. The slave is robbed, by his master, of all his earnings, above what is required for his bare physical necessities; and the white man is robbed by the slave system, of the just results of his labor, because he is flung into open competition with a class of laborers who work without wages."
I discuss this further in my “Is It a ‘Privilege’ Not To Be Discriminated Against?” The point is NOT that racial discrimination doesn’t really occur. Yes, it does occur, as I have written about here. Yes, non-whites have been treated worse than whites. The point is that this has HARMED ordinary white working class people, not benefited them. If racial discrimination benefited working class whites, then the working class whites of the American South during the Jim Crow years would have had higher wages than whites in the north where there were no Jim Crow laws. But the exact opposite is the case. White wages in the Jim Crow South were LOWER than in the non-Jim Crow North, as this article discusses:
Let’s look at something else. The sales figures quoted are for 1939 and the population figures are for 1940. The population of Georgia was 3,123,723. The population of the state of Washington was 1,736,101. In Georgia, 32,870 retail stores sold $624,765,000 and paid 78,947 employees $58,874,000 in wages. In Washington, the sales of 26,682 retail stores amounted to $668,790,000; 66,852 employees were paid $75,405,000 in wages. North Carolina and Wisconsin are about the same size in population. In 1939, however, 270,207 North Carolina Wage earners received $199,289,500 in wages. The same year 200,207 wage earners in Wisconsin received $251,946,993 in wages. That is, there were around 70,000 fewer wage earners in Wisconsin but they received 52 million dollars more in wages than the wage earners of North Carolina. And we have to remember that North Carolina is not Mississippi or Arkansas.
This means that the workers of Wisconsin had 52 millions more to spend or save than the industrial workers of North Carolina. It means that the industrial families of the workers of Wisconsin would have more electric irons, radios, washers, pianos, furniture, clothing and food than the families of the industrial workers of North Carolina. This means also that Wisconsin can have more and better schools and that the state does not need a poll-tax to aid in support of the state government. This higher income means that Charles Luekman of the Committee on Civil Rights will sell more Life-Buoy soap in Wisconsin than in North Carolina or Mississippi. Not only because the masses have more money in Wisconsin but because they have better schools and better homes in which they are taught that human beings should use soap, and that it is no longer necessary to make one’s own soap in the backyard from wood ash lye.
Since the figures I have used are for a few years back it might he conjectured that the gap had been closed. This is not the case. The standard of living, in the South, was raised some during the war, but not much. Per capita income in 1946 was $555 in Mississippi, $729 in South Carolina and $809 in Georgia. Compare this with $1,090 in Kansas which was perhaps the median for the North. It would be interesting to see the reaction of a native Mississippi poor white after he had advanced to the point where he could understand the meaning of that $555 for this state in relation to what is going on right now. I mean that raising of $100,000 to teach this poor white not to reach beyond that $555 if thereby the Negro will get a little more. I have the notion that when the bedraggled and ignorant poor whites of the South begin to understand these things, there will be another civil war but all the fighting will take place in Dixie.
And the legacy of the old Jim Crow laws still has this harmful effect for both non-white and white workers, as discussed in an article about the 21st century South:
One reason wages continued to fall throughout the Deep South, despite the influx of jobs, is the region's distinctive absence of legislation and institutions that protect workers' interests. The five states that have no minimum-wage laws are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Georgia is one of the two states (the other is Wyoming) that have set minimum wages below the level of the federal standard. (In all these states, of course, employers are required to pay the federal minimum wage.) Likewise, the rates of unionization of Southern states' workforces are among the lowest in the land: 4.3 percent in Georgia, 3.7 percent in Mississippi, 2.2 percent in South Carolina, 1.9 percent in North Carolina. The extensive use of workers employed by temporary staffing agencies in Southern factories-one former Nissan official has said such workers constitute more than half the workers in Nissan's Southern plants-has lowered workers' incomes even more, and created one more obstacle to unionization.
The South's aversion to both minimum-wage standards and unions is rooted deep within the DNA of white Southern elites, whose primary impulse has always been to keep African Americans down.
To those elites, the prospect of biracial unions threatened not just their profits but the legitimacy of their social order. To counter the biracial Southern populist movement that emerged in the 1890s, those elites created Jim Crow laws that legitimated and promoted white racism, and it was largely by manipulating that racism that they were able to thwart almost all the Southern organizing campaigns that unions have waged since the 1930s.
Second, saturate the airwaves and print media with a public discourse on race that falsely asserts that racial discrimination against non-whites benefits ordinary white people, and call this so-called benefit “white privilege.” Do this so thoroughly that now young people have no way of even referring to racial discrimination except by using the phrase “white privilege”; they don’t use the old phrase “racial discrimination.” The phrase “racial discrimination” properly points the accusing finger at the person or institution that does the discriminating, whereas the new phrase, “white privilege,” wrongly—and extremely divisively!—points the accusing finger at ordinary white people, blaming them for what actually harms them, and letting the people who really do benefit from racial discrimination—the wealthy upper class—off the hook. Read about this in my 2013 article (some links are broken now, sorry) “Why and How Big Money Promotes ‘White Privilege’ Rhetoric.”
Third, introduce a “CRT (Critical Race Theory)” curriculum on race in the schools (K-12 public) that censors the key truth about racial discrimination—whom it serves and whom it harms—and, by its silence on whom racial discrimination serves and whom it harms, ensures that whatever examples of racial discrimination it teaches about, be it in the past or today, the strongly implied message will be that this evil practice has (or does) benefit ordinary white people, that ordinary white people were (or are) thus guilty of being oppressors of non-white people. Furthermore, as the CRT curriculum emphasizes, because ordinary white people benefited (or benefit) from racial discrimination against non-whites whether they did so knowingly or not and whether they consciously implemented the racial discrimination or not, they are guilty oppressors in either case.
The intended effect of this CRT curriculum in the schools is exactly the effect it has been having.
On the one hand, it infuriates white working class people who rightly and understandably do not want their children being taught that they are evil oppressors because they are white. Here is one example of this anger:
These same white working class parents would LOVE it if the school taught the fact of racial discrimination along with the truth about whom it served and whom it harmed. (Note that many good teachers would love to teach the truth, but rightly fear being fired if they did.)
On the other hand, teaching the CRT curriculum (with its censorship of the key fact about racial discrimination: whom it benefits and whom it harms) sets up white working class parents who object to it for the false accusation against them that their opposition to the CRT curriculum is just pure racism, a wish to censor the fact of past and present racial discrimination in order to maintain this racial discrimination, to maintain their undeserved “white privilege.” Hence propaganda like this:
This false accusation of racism—as intended!—turns blacks against working class whites. The politicians whip up this divide-and-rule by either aggressively promoting CRT in the schools or banning it in the schools, in either case framing their action as taking the side of one race against the other.
My article, Here’s What CRT (Critical Race Theory) Censors is about the history of racial discrimination from its inception in the American Colonies, whom it served and whom it harmed, and how the CRT curriculum is being used today for divide-and-rule. I hope you will read it.