This is the title of a real academic paper: "Beyond the Face of Race: Emo-Cognitive Explorations of White Neurosis and Racial Cray-Cray."

Guess who wrote it.

First sentence: "Interaction with White people is at times so overwhelming, draining, and incomprehensible that it causes
serious anguish for People of Color."

End of the first paragraph: "Thus, a specific racial co-production is formed. We term this co-production racial cray-cray (cray-cray=an African-American euphemism for utter craziness); the crazy making that results from White denial of racial saliency."

Quotes: "We conceptualize the predictability of these White responses as a kind of pre-existing emo-cognitive neurosis that erupts whenever colorblind ideology is challenged. Bonilla-Silva (2006) documents these responses in his study of colorblind White racism."

This part enrages me: "Probing forbidden racial issues results in verbal incoherence—digressions, long pauses, repetition, and self corrections. He suggests that this incoherent talk is a function of talking about race in a world that insists that race does not matter."

Pretty much the whole critical whiteness facade is built upon this simple dynamic:

1) Race-hustler aggressively accosts white person about race (aggression is intentionally advocated);
2) White person becomes uncomfortable;
3) Hustler uses discomfort as proof of racism.

Awful.

The "scholarly" race hustlers then go off and write down an academic paper based on that dynamic they forced into a situation, and the "academic canon" about race and racism grows in a direction that enables and informs even more race-hustling and related shakedowns. It's fraud.

Here's the game put a different way:

Bring up race and racism in an aggressive way with a white person who you know is going to be put on the spot, and then characterize the reaction of being put on the spot as a kind of moral failure.

Absolutely enraging that it works.

Then the paper writes this emotional manipulation down like this:

"In seeking to understand the emo-cognitions that undergird these dynamics, we ask, 'What is the condition that compels whites to so consistently perform these behaviors, and how does it impact people of color?'"

Those "emo-cognitions" are then cast as "racial cray-cray" in this paper, literally that. And people still wonder why we were moved to write our own fake papers about dog sex and the likes.

But where did these awful ideas come from? Critical whiteness studies and critical race theory. They tell us *explicitly*.

This is the stuff we're mainstreaming into everything in the Western world right now.

"Mills describes White supremacy as 'the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today.' He notes that while the system of White supremacy has shaped Western political thought for hundreds of years, it is never named nor identified as a system at all."

What that means is that Mills identifies Enlightenment liberalism as "white supremacy" and then says that no one else has ever called it that, in case you needed a translation from the Wokish.

"Thus, we do not question whether or not racism is occurring
in any specific situation, context, or location, or if any individual White person is or isn’t engaged in racism...

"Thus the antiracist project is to identify how (but not if) racism is manifesting—morphing and adapting—in any given context, both locally and globally."

In black and white. Racism is always happening everywhere. Antiracism is looking until you find it.

"Matias argues [this form of white racial discourse] functions as what she terms “White Diss-course” because it ultimately disrespects (disses) People of Color under the guise of racial ignorance."

In case you're wondering about these terms, the authors are white and Filipina.

"Matias (2012) details how standardized Eurocentric history curriculum that only heralds the accomplishments of White Americans deleteriously impacts the development of a healthy understanding of White racial identity."

"healthy" = self-loathing

"Conversely, DuBois’ (1903) work explains that..."

Making the case that racism is a persistent, immanent system today with arguments written 117 years ago. But of course, Because racism, according to Critical Race Theory, is a permanent feature of the system.

"Thus in our current racial context, they [African Americans] are able to decipher racially-coded talk despite living in a society that reinforces colorblind ideology and the denial of White supremacy."

Because racism 117 years ago, blacks today can detect invisible racism.

I'm not misrepresenting these arguments. This is really how they do their thing. This is the Woke scholarship that is really setting the course of the world in 2020, what other academics say they couldn't possibly criticize because it's outside of their arena of expertise.

"Adding intersectionality, Patricia Hill-Collins (1986, 1990) argues that Black females have a greater sensitivity to mechanisms of racism and patriarchy that go unseen by their White female counterparts, due in part to their racial and gender positionality."

Identity Gnostics.

"Solorzano and Yosso (2002) further the importance of positionality by explicating how the counterstories of People of Color are a clearer picture of racial oppression than their White counterparts because of their racially marginalized position in the racial structure."

The "White counterparts" to counterstories about racial oppression here is ambiguous without looking up the cited paper, but it bears mentioning that generally speaking, giving evidence is considered a form of white storytelling in Critical Race Theory.

"For Whites then, the omnipresence of Whiteness structures their lives in a false reality of colorblindness, whereas the lives of People of Color—who are constantly racialized—are structured in the stark reality of racial oppression...

"and these two forms of consciousness co-create one another."

This is the same argument I gave yesterday in my essay about its impacts on agency. I wish I were making this stuff up, but I'm definitely not. https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/wokeness-not-racist-doctrines-disempowerment/

I suppose you get the idea and that I don't really need to keep puttering through this paper and sharing it with you as I go. I might not be able to resist, though.

Didn't make it far before I couldn't resist. Look at the list of things that apparently cause "white racial disequilibrium." Interruptions to objectivity, psychological comfort, liberalism, meritocracy, individualism, plus some utter nonsense.

The very end of the paragraph at the bottom of the above image is, yet again, infuriating: "Of course these responses are certainly constructive if the intent is to maintain racial divides)."

They explicitly frame any rejection of their BS as a desire to maintain racism.

For the real theory dorks out there, the case about white fragility is then built (as it is in the book White Fragility) through Bourdieu's sociological lens. This is interesting because Bourdieu was a anti-PoMo competitor to Foucault who said a lot of similar things better.

Then they go for the kids, including pre-schoolers. So, for those who asked the other day, these would be the studies DiAngelo cited in the British TV interview saying kids as young as four see white identity as positive. The quoted one presumes the US is "white supremacist."

References that aren't from the 1960s:

Marty, D. (1999). White antiracist rhetoric as apologia: Wendell Berry’s The Hidden Wound.

The other one isn't actually in the references, but is presumably this: https://books.google.com/books/about/What_If_All_the_Kids_are_White.html?id=ride0fvtIMwC

"Cultural responsive teaching, multicultural education, and urban education philosophies are proliferating in teacher education programs within the US. These teacher prep programs are predominate with liberal White females, thus causing an overwhelming presence of Whiteness."

Things most white people don't think but Robin DiAngelo apparently does:

"Because People of Color are marked by race and inferiority in the White mind, their intellect and visibility in this context are received by Whites as an affront to White moral order."

The next section begins with a literal rant where one of the authors belittles a (hypothetical) student and then starts accusing him of racism against her as a means of asserting her educational authority.

These people are psychopaths.

If you care, when she says it's "not critical race theory" but a "Fanonian" analysis, that means it relies upon the (rather angry) French psychoanalyist Frantz Fanon, whose postcolonial work preceded postmodernism, advocates literal violence, and is inspirational to Antifa.

In one of Antifa's own manuals (Blac Block, White Riot -- the name alludes to Fanon's 1951 book Black Skins, White Masks), Fanon's work is described as "revolutionary" and "dynamite in print." He, together with Herbert Marcuse, are primary theorists undergirding Antifa.

/shrug

Raising white kids as white (which they said automatically happens in a white supremacist society, which ours automatically is) is child abuse because it makes white kids white fragile, white neurotic, and racially cray-cray.

This part is literally the point of Critical Race Theory and Critical Whiteness Studies, tho. Seeing race, when white, is necessary and wrong. Like, they're admitting that they're psychologically abusing white kids without realizing they're admitting it.

WTAF? "In this repressed state, Whites’racial rationality is undermined, yet through White supremacy, that rationality is crowned hegemonic Truth (Gramsci, 1971)."

Fancy seeing Antonio Gramsci cited here (long march through the institutions guy)...

Seems like a pertinent time to point out that neither of the authors is a psychologist. They're both in education, not psychology.

This is a recurring theme in this abusive Theory, as it turns out.

I can hardly believe this is a real sentence in an academic paper that has been cited at least 19 times: "Under the power of Whiteness, the racial cray-cray becomes a socially-sanctioned process of engaging in the lies of White neurosis that everyone is forced to perform."

"To be clear, White neurosis is not benign, while it may appear so to well-intentioned Whites; it functions as racial microaggressions for People of Color."

Of course it does. Why are we giving these people the keys to the castle?

I mean, this paragraph, which builds upon *microaggressions* is not the product of healthy minds. This is, in fact, genuinely insane.

It bears repeating that this paper is concerned with "white neurosis" and "racial cray-cray" when reading this next paragraph, which is genuinely the product of some kind of fever dream. This is literally the kind of stuff we'd have written in the Grievance Studies papers and .

Intermission. I'm imagining having written those last two paragraphs myself in the Grievance Studies Affair, along with the rant at the beginning of the section, and laughing myself literally to the edge of being sick thinking of how funny and insane we would have thought it.

@peterboghossian @HPluckrose @MikeNayna

I mean... HOOOOOOOO: "Thus metaphorically, to speak up about race to Whites is to immediately place a noose over one’s own neck, however to not speak up is to slowly tighten the chains around the Brown body."

Whoooooo...

That rule of thumb that most of what Theory writes down is projection... yeah. That.

Louder for the people in the back:

"In fact, these moves are considered classic within the abuse literature (Engel, 2004; Hegstrom, 1999; Mills, 2009); wherein the victim of abuse grows up to be a perpetrator, while projecting his own shame onto his victims."

Yep. O_O

You guys. It's getting even crazier.

"It is this cycle that causes serious racial cray-cray."

A parable about "Poor White Man" and some poetry come next. Not making that up.

The preceding pictured part, first paragraph, actually argues that if white people identify black people as violent, that's a super racist move because white people were violent against blacks historically.

How can people not see through this and see how dangerous it is?

It's painfully obvious to anyone who isn't nuts who is reading this that the "racial cray-cray" is the result of using Critical Race Theory and Critical Whiteness Studies to think about race. But their whole little game is to flip that script and move the blame. "Not our fault."

Nobody is going to believe me about this "parable" and poem unless I just post the whole things. There's no way anyone would believe this if I just described it to them.

The "parable":

If you think the parable is crazy, wait until you see the poem.

The conclusion is nothing short of unhinged, but don't miss this: "White norms of rationality should not be the standard for which change is measured."

The end. But I don't know which part of this is most crazy, so... I'll just say that the (regular) note hides the fact that "white" and "people of color" might not have their usual meanings, mentioned only in a footnote.

And, "every day" is two words, as they're using it.

I'm sorry to have inflicted this upon you, but you need to know.