Session 8: The Marxist Eschatology of CRT, Part 2 with Darrell Harrison

All right, we are ready to begin our next session, so please come in and find your seat again. All right, Darryl just shared with me that they did get their design guy back with some of the t-shirts and stuff for the Build Black Better.

This says established Kootenai Community Church 2022 right below it. So we're gonna get a commission off of everything, I think. All right, our next session is the Marxist Eschatology of CRT Part Two.

Darryl Harrison.

Hi y 'all, okay, there he is. I was just about to ask where Virgil is because I really appreciate Virgil, what he said towards the latter part of his message. Man, so y 'all about to see what happens off mic, what you don't hear recorded on the episodes when we release an episode, what you guys don't hear, the blooper stuff, right, right, V?

But what I appreciate what Virgil did towards the end of his message, especially, not only at the end, but especially at the end, is where he just hammered, he just continued to reiterate that the gospel is a solution.

The gospel is a solution. You heard me mention yesterday that there's only two attitudes that you and I can have towards one another. And I said that in the context of my rejection of this idea of racial reconciliation.

It's a non sequitur, it's a non starter, it's an absolute oxymoron. You heard Virgil sort of reiterate that in his message that he just finished with. But the idea of racial reconciliation is a non sequitur, it just doesn't make sense.

And I made the point yesterday that biblically speaking, there are only two attitudes that you and I can have towards one another. That is, I either love you or I hate you. You either love me or you hate me.

There's no room for these isms and all these phobias and all these other types of terms that subjectively describe what the Bible clearly says is fundamentally a sin issue. This is exactly what you just heard Virgil articulate here just a few moments ago.

And I brought my Bible up here with me on this occasion because I want you to understand in what biblical context and what scriptural context it is that I can make such a claim that there are only two attitudes that you and I can have towards one another.

That's either love or hate. So if you have your Bible with you, I want you to turn with me to 1 John chapter two. 1 John chapter two. And I'm gonna refer you to about three verses here in this epistle of 1 John.

And as we're reading these verses together, these passages together, I want you to hone in. Okay, we're about to have like a 60-second Bible study lesson here. I want you to hone in on how often you see the words love and hate used.

You don't see isms. You don't see anything like that. You see the words love and hate. So let's look at 1 John chapter two. I'm reading from the non-Armenian Standard Bible, wasn't I? The New American Standard translation is what I'm reading from.

1 John chapter two, verse nine. 1 John chapter two, verse nine. The one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. Verse 10, the one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

Verse 11, but the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. Do you see the language there? The language of love versus hate.

Turn over to 1 John chapter three. 1 John chapter three, verse four. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness and sin is lawlessness. Now let me stop right there again because you recall yesterday one of the questions we had in the Q &A, someone asked, well why doesn't the Bible, why doesn't the New Testament speak directly against slavery?

And I told you, I said no, it does speak directly against slavery and here's one example. Whoever practices sin also practices lawlessness and sin is lawlessness. I don't care what the manifestation of the sin is.

If you're practicing a sin, the Bible addresses that. Verse six of 1 John three, no one who abides in him practices sin. So what should you tell a brother or sister who you know who is starting to embrace the lies of critical race theory and liberation theology and deconstructionism?

What should you tell them? Well, if you profess to be a believer, 1 John three, four, you're obviously not reflecting that in your life, in the way you live. Going on in 1 John three, six, no one who abides in him sins, that is to say no one who abides in Christ practices sin as a way of life, habitually.

Okay, we know from 1 John three, nine, let's go there, lest I be misunderstood, no one who was born of God practices sin because his seed, that is God's seed abides in him and he cannot sin, that is he cannot practice sin because he is born of God.

So people say, well, all the time, well, you can't tell if a person's saved or not.

Yes, you can. It says it right here.

It says it right here.

Do you know someone who professes to be a Christian that you see by outward evidence of their life that they're practicing sin in their life? That person is not a believer because it says right here they can't be a believer because the person who professes to be born again, the person who is truly regenerate, he cannot practice sin.

He does not practice sin because he can't. So the one who says, well, like Virgil gave the example, you know, you got a grandfather out there, he's got these old soldier jokes from World War II and he just hangs on to them, he just kind of spits them out every now and then.

You know, what should I tell him? You take him to First John. Say, Grandpa, you're a sinner and you need to confess your sin and you need to repent. You need to repent of these jokes that you're telling.

Why?

Because Ephesians 4 .31, you don't have to turn there, I'm going to turn there real quick. Ephesians 4 .31 says this. It says, let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you.

Along with all malice, be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. So the answers are in the Word of God. It's just a matter of us being students of it so that we know where to go to see it.

One last passage for you. Stay in First John 3 and go to verse 13.

First John 3 .13.

Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

Verse 15.

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. So again, you see the language of love versus hate, love versus hate. I either love you or I hate you.

Those are the only two attitudes you and I can have towards one another. No one's a racist. He hates his brother. That's the point I'm trying to make here. And what I'm doing is trying to reaffirm the point I gave you yesterday is we have to start using biblical vernacular.

We have to use biblical terms. It's not that the person is a racist. It's that the person hates the other person. So if you just stay settled on the fact that someone's a racist, what that leaves you open to is temporal worldly solutions to a problem that Virgil just articulated only the gospel can solve.

Well, we need to set up this commission on race. We need to set up this panel. We need to integrate this DEI program at work.

No, uh-uh.

You need to be born again.

That's your problem.

It's no different, as I alluded to yesterday, my wife and I do biblical counseling back in LA. It's no different than a husband or a wife who commits adultery. They didn't have an affair.

They committed adultery. That's what the Bible calls it.

You will never see in this book from cover to cover adultery being referred to as an affair. David didn't have an affair with Bathsheba.

Committed adultery.

So we have to reject and refuse the vernacular of the world. No one's a racist.

He hates you. She hates him.

Okay, sermon's over. I need to get my notes here so we can keep going. That's Virgil's fault. Virgil just laid that on my heart. So like I said, I was about to get Pentecostal down and start doing my thing, man.

So I posed the question to you yesterday and I asked you, how did we get here? How is it that Virgil and I ended up in Idaho? Really is the question.

Jim called us.

How did we get here, though? Fundamentally, this is why Virgil and I are in Idaho right now in Kootenai Community Church.

How did we get here?

Dr. Elizabeth Lash Quinn, brother, came up to me during the break and asked us for if we had a list of books that we refer to people. And I was like, of course, yeah, we got books. So on my website, if you go to my blog site at deacondarrell .com, in the search field, just search for selected readings.

Put in the search field selected readings and it'll take you to a short blog post that has a link to a PDF of a list of 140 books from our personal library that you can take a look at. Okay, the books, it's not a ranking.

They're referenced by number, but you'll have a list of 140 titles and the author. So if you're interested, this book is on the list. So just go to deacondarrell .com, put in the search field that's the word deacon, D-E-A-C-O-N, D-A-R-R-E-L-L, dot com, search for selected readings, and it will bring up that post.

But to help us answer the question of how we got here, Dr. Elizabeth Lash Quinn, she is professor of history at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in Syracuse, New York.

Dr. Elizabeth Lash Quinn has written a book titled Race Experts, subtitled How Racial Etiquette, Sensitivity Training, and New Age Therapy Hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution. In that book, she answers that question this way, the question of how we got here.

Quoting from Dr. Elizabeth Lash Quinn, out of the maelstrom of the 1960s rose an army of race experts whose ministrations unintentionally helped prolong old racial tensions and foster new misunderstandings and anxieties.

The interpretations of our racial situation offered by these experts stand in the way of our adjustment to an integrated America. Understandably enlivened by the real revolution that civil rights brought to this country and by the implications that revolution for a radical reconstruction of social and political life, self-proclaimed experts sought to continue the revolution to its logical conclusion.

Persuaded by 1960s rhetoric and social science theorizing, they believed that the new frontier of revolution was the mind, particularly individuals' attitudes. Convinced of the entrenched bigotry of middle America, that's all of you in here, literally, we're in middle America.

Persuaded by the 1960s rhetoric and social science theorizing, they believed that the frontier of revolution was the mind, particularly individuals' attitudes, convinced of the entrenched bigotry, not proven, convinced of, convinced of the entrenched bigotry of middle America and of their role in its exposure and enlightenment, experts carved out niches for themselves and established fields like teaching, social work and psychiatry and created altogether new professional roles such as those of interracial etiquette advisors and diversity trainers.

The race experts moved in to fill a void created by the collapse of the Civil Rights Coalition and the loss of the clarity of the early movement, capitalizing on a long-term trend in American culture toward reliance on experts for guidance in all aspects of public and personal life, unquote.

That is why your company is consulting with DEI experts. That's how this happened. The race experts of which Dr. Lashquin is speaking were the neo-Marxist legal scholars who launched the critical race theory movement out of a desire, as Dr. Lashquin rightly said, to prolong old racial tensions and foster new misunderstandings and anxieties.

Never ever think that critical race theory wants reconciliation. They do not want reconciliation. They don't want any sort of ethnic or social-cultural tensions within our world today to be solved.

Why?

Because then they wouldn't be able to reproblematize anything. Their goal is not solving, it's reproblematizing. The desire to prolong old racial tensions is what motivates critical race theorists from the moment they wake up in the morning.

What can I find to criticize today? Remember, that's what the word critical means. It means to criticize. It should not be overlooked that when Dr. Lashquin says that those so-called race experts are seeking to affect all aspects of public and private life, please understand that all is exactly what she means.

I say that because critical race theory is increasingly being taught in public schools across America, not only at the university level, but as many CRT apologists would have you believe, they'd have you believe that it's only at the university level where it started out that it's kind of stayed there, but it's at the K -12 level now, too.

And not just K -12, K -20. Public schools are vital to critical race theorists achieving their eschatological objectives, especially as those objectives relate to shaping the sociocultural landscape as it relates to young black children.

As Dr. David O. Stovall, Professor of Black Studies, Criminology, and Law, Law and Justice at the University of Illinois Chicago, writes in the Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, you will recall that this is one of the books I referred to you in my earlier message this morning to get a copy of that book, the Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education.

In that book, Dr. David O. Stovall writes this, quote, CRT challenges dominant ideologies surrounding the ability of students of color to excel inside and outside of K -20 spaces. Let me pause in the quote.

You'll recall me earlier this morning saying that critical race theory is why, especially as it relates to black students, young black students, the bar is not only being lowered academically, it's being eliminated.

It's been eliminated because of what David O. Stovall was saying here. Critical race theory challenges dominant ideologies surrounding the ability of students of color to excel inside and outside of K -20 spaces.

So what he's saying here, Stovall is saying here, is that black children are inherently incapable of learning. So we have to make exceptions for them. They can't be required to do homework. They can't take a test.

They won't pass it because they're black. Continuing to quote Dr. David O. Stovall, this problematizes over-reliance on standardized test performance and normalizing views associated with white Western European Christian male standpoints as the standards for culture and academic achievement, unquote.

This is really pitiful. This is really sad. To be expected to learn, to expect a black child to learn is racist, is essentially what he just said. Standardized test performance and normalizing views. See, this is why two plus two equals five now.

You can't expect a black child to have normalizing views of math. In our episode that we did, A Biblical Theology of White Culture, we took an infographic that was produced by the African American History Museum who had multiple points of whiteness.

By the way, please listen to our whiteness episode. It's my favorite one. That's my favorite episode of all we've done. But that infographic by the African American History Museum in our episode on the Biblical Theology of White Culture, where we took that infographic where that organization was alleging that work was racist.

Being punctual and being on time was racist. Using proper grammar was racist. Working hard and giving a day's worth of work was racist. This is exactly what Dr. David Stovall is imbibing in this quote that I just read.

Critical race theory,.

I don't even have the adjective for it. It is the most destructive ideology I have ever come across. So if you've ever wondered why it is, in many public elementary schools today especially, that tests, exams, SATs, ACTs, LSATs, and other standardized tests are being eliminated, now you know why.

It's critical race theory.

But they're gonna call it social emotional learning. No, we want all our children, all our students to be well-rounded individuals. This is what John Dewey wanted. John Dewey is the father of the public education system.

This is what he wanted. John Dewey saw public schools as a means to indoctrinate children to sort of form a certain sociocultural way of seeing the world. Public schools were never designed to educate your children.

They were designed from day one to indoctrinate them. Public schools have long been the conduit of choice for pushing ungodly ideologies like Marxism and now critical race theory into society and consequently into the minds of society's children.

After all, it was Karl Marx himself. Karl Marx himself in his Communist Manifesto declared an essential tenet of communism to be this, quoting, education of all children from the moment that they can leave their mother's care in national establishments at national cost, unquote.

That was Karl Marx's vision, public school. That you would send your children to public school and have the government pay for it, have the government oversee all the curriculum.

This is Karl Marx.

He says this in the Communist Manifesto. That his goal was education of all children from the moment that they can leave their mother's care. And now what are we hearing right now?

What are we hearing now?

Your children aren't even yours anymore. The moment they enter that door of that public school, they're not yours anymore.

They're mine.

The teachers are saying, does Karl Marx's vision come to reality? They're my children now. They're not yours, they're mine. What is fundamental to understand about critical race theory is that it situates race at the center of social analysis.

So as Virgil said earlier, in critical race theory, race is, everything is viewed through a racial lens. I told Barack Obama the other day on Twitter that he sees the world through race-colored glasses.

Yeah, I told him that. Yeah, I added him. I added President Barack Obama. My opinion, President Barack Obama is the most racist individual I've ever, I haven't come across him personally, but the most racist individual I've ever known to exist.

He sees the entire world through race-colored glasses. Everything, even a rose, a beautiful red or white, yellow rose is black before he sees the red, white, or yellow. But this is what critical race theory does.

It situates race at the center of social analysis. Everything's racial first. In critical race theory, differences such as social class, gender, ethnicity, and language are acknowledged and understood as dimensions of intersectionality that impact how race shapes policy in everyday life.

However, race is the primary object of that analysis, and explanations of social phenomena are primarily offered through a racial lens. The reality that critical race theory views society through a racial lens raises the question, how exactly is race defined in critical race theory?

Virgil kind of alluded to that earlier in his message just now before I came up, and then we hit on this yesterday as well. How is race defined in critical race theory? Well, the answer to that question depends on who you ask.

When considering the eschatological similarities between Marxism and critical race theory, it's vital to understand that in critical race theory, race, rather, is a social construct. In other words, you could say it this way.

Race is a moving target. Any football fans in here, soccer fans? Imagine being a field goal kicker or a forward, a scorer on a soccer pitch, and you're trying to kick the ball into the goal, you're trying to kick the football between goal posts, but the goal posts keep going like this.

That's critical race theory. That's how critical race theory defines race, goal. Oh, you think it's over here?

No, move it. Oh, no, move.

That's what critical race theory,.

They're always, race is dynamic. It never means just this. See, in the culture, race is defined by just looking at the color of your skin. If you're lighter than me, you're white. If I'm darker than you, I'm black.

But race is also how much money you make, where you live, what kind of job you have, what position you have, how far you have to drive to work, what the crime rate is in your neighborhood. But all that's race, too.

Viewing race as a social construct as opposed to a fixed scientific or biological construct makes race changeable and mutable with regard to how that term is defined. And that's how critical race theorists make their money.

And they're making a lot of money. Racism is big business. That's another reason critical race theorists cannot afford to have racism solved, because they would stop getting paid. I've always found it interesting that for all these, there's so many books out there on how to be an anti-racist.

Why are there so many books on how to do it? If it can be solved societally, why are there so many books telling me how to do it? That's because they don't want you to have an answer. They want you to keep buying their books.

Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings. Gloria Ladson-Billings, professor of urban education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where Pop Quiz, CRT, began in 1989 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings explains this way. Quote, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and sociologists agree that race is not a scientific reality. I'm gonna repeat that. Biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and sociologists agree that race is not a scientific reality.

Despite what we perceive as phenotypic differences, the scrutiny of a microscope or the sequencing of genes reveals no perceptible differences between what we call races. You heard me quote yesterday from the book titled, The Myth of Race.

Add that book to your list, The Myth of Race. Continuing to quote Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings. As members of the same species, human beings are biologically quite similar. Just as a tabby cat and a calico cat are the same species with the ability to reproduce within their species, so it is with humans.

However, humans have constructed social categories. Listen closer to this. Humans have constructed social categories and organizations that rely heavily on arbitrary genetic differences like skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and lip size.

Who's that sound like?

Sounds like Dr. Samuel Morton, doesn't it? Who is an admirer of Charles Darwin. So you could really argue that critical race theory has a lot of its roots in Darwinism. Continuing to quote Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings.

They have used these differences as a mechanism for creating hierarchy and an ideology of white supremacy. Thus, while critical race theorists accept the scientific understanding of no race or no genetic difference, we also accept, and here's the hypocrisy, we also accept the power of a social reality that allows for significant disparities in the life chances of people based on the categorical understanding of race.

So on the one hand, she's saying, yep, we realize that race is really not biological. There's no scientific basis for any of that, but we're gonna leverage the social excuses for it so we can take advantage of it.

This is what she's saying. Critical race theorists are playing you like a fiddle.

You got critical race theorists.

Even acknowledging that race is nonsense. There's no such thing. But the media, corporate America, universities, colleges, public schools have bought this stuff and they're drinking the Kool-Aid with a 50-foot straw.

They just can't get enough of it. Again, see, first on our myth busters, I just busted a myth for you here. Using the words of a critical race theorist.

She says it. While critical race theorists.

Accept the scientific understanding of no race, no genetic differences, we also accept the power of a social reality though that allows for significant disparities. The social reality. See, you gotta catch the terms here, guys.

It's a social reality.

It's a construct. That's what Verdon and I have been telling you. Race is just a made-up label like the National Geographic article said. It's made up. It's all made up. It's entirely by design that critical race theorists view race fundamentally as a social construct, but it's through the lens of race as a social reality, as a social reality that they are able to apply the Marxist concept of dividing people into different classes and groups and pitting those classes and groups against one another so as to establish a rationale for the eschatological apologetic, which is, again, to invert the current Western Judean Christian structure of this society and turn it upside down to where we have new oppressors and white people become the oppressed.

That's how the eschatological vision of critical race theory is achieved through intersectional class warfare. That's the same eschatological vision that Karl Marx had. To quote again Dr. Michael J. Dumas from yesterday, if indeed racism is found in class relations, if indeed racism is found in class relations and in the logics and institutions of capital, and you remember he saying yesterday that in critical race theory, capitalism, I'm sorry, in Marxism, capitalism is the enemy.

And in critical race theory, capitalism is what causes racism.

It's capitalism.

If indeed racism is found in class relations and then the logics and institutions of capital, then any analysis of the construct of race or institutional and cultural practices of racism must be based in a class critique.

Put another way, in Marxian analysis, discussion of race is only critical, meaning criticized. In Marxian analysis, discussion of race is only critical and only makes sense when racism is understood as a powerful instantiation of capitalism.

Given the relationship between racism and capitalism in a Marxian framework, it becomes imperative to theorize how capital works in processes of racialization and racial exploitation and violence. In CRT, class is most often presented as a dimension of intersectionality, in which class, alongside such categories as nationality, gender, and ability, is a social identity and descriptor of personal life experience, rather than a pervasive and structural exercise of the power of capital.".

So what you have there is a lot of gibberish talking about how, basically, fundamentally, critical race theory is structured to divide, organize into classes, and then pit those classes against one another, especially with respect to how many intersectional victimhood categories they can come up with.

This is why you have what critical race theory is subtly accomplishing, very covertly, is a restriction of free speech. What I just read to you is exactly what's happening. So when we read that CRT is most often presented as a dimension of intersectionality, in which class is a social identity, this is why now you're being penalized if you don't refer to somebody by their preferred pronouns.

It's going to come to a point where you could go to jail for that. That's what's coming. You can't even say what you want to say anymore. Because we have these social identity groups, and as these social identity groups are accepted as legitimate groups within society, they get certain civil rights protections, which benefit them, but they're punitive to us.

This is exactly what critical race theory is accomplishing. Are you getting, let me just ask, are you guys understanding how broad critical race theory is? It's affecting everything. It's touching everything.

What I just read from Dr. Dumas, these are words that are steeped in the vernacular of a Marxian dialectic. Critical race theory leverages the dialectical language of Marxism in order to advance the proposition that racism is primarily the fault of capitalism, and ideologically, capitalism is the sworn enemy of Marxism.

But see, in critical race theory, only white people benefit from capitalism. Black people suffer as white people benefit from capitalism. That's why in critical race theory, white people are the enemy.

Like I said yesterday, in critical race theory, the only sin is the sin of being white. Like Virgil said earlier, like we explained in our whiteness episode, the definition of whiteness that I give in that episode is that whiteness is anything that is not blackness.

And while I'm on that, let me just say this, let me just exegete whiteness for a second. White refers to your skin color, your ethnicity. The ness comes in, the suffix, the N-E-S-S comes in, as Virgil explained earlier, in.

The way you live your life.

The traditions that you hold, the standard of living that you have, the number of children that you have, the level of comfort in that standard of living that you become accustomed to, that's the ness.

So that's the whiteness that critical race theorists hate, because you've acquired that whiteness at my expense. That's the interest conversion theory. The goal of advancing a Marxian dialectical proposition is so that capitalism can be replaced with a more egalitarian system, namely cultural Marxism, so that the oppressed and modernized classes become the new oppressor classes.

This is what you're seeing happen in corporate America through these DEI officers. Nine out of ten of them are black female. They're changing the structure. They're changing the structure. That's one way that they do it.

We're going to bring DEI into your workplace. In a 1941 book titled Reason and Revolution, written by the German Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse, Marcuse is broadly regarded as the founder of modern American Marxism.

Marcuse, who lived from 1898 to 1979, was one of the, quote, one of the most prominent members of the Frankfurt School, or what was called the Institute for Social Research. In the book Reason and Revolution, Marcuse had this to say about the function and purpose of the Marxian dialectic.

Quote, the historical character of the Marxian dialectic embraces the prevailing negativity. Hold on, let me stop. Gibberish alert, gibberish alert. Nonsense alert. If you thought Robin Henderson, Robin Henderson Espinoza's quote was bad, talking about midwifing shalom, listen to this.

Marcuse says, the historical character of the Marxian dialectic embraces the prevailing negativity as well as the negation. The given state of affairs is negative and can be rendered positive only by liberating the possibilities imminent in it.

This last, the negation of the negation, is accomplished by establishing a new order of things. The negativity and its negation are two different phases of the same historical process, straddled by man's historical action.

The new state is the truth of the old, but that truth does not steadily and automatically grow out of the earlier state. It can be set free only by an autonomous act on the part of men that will cancel the whole of the existing negative state.

Listen, I'm just as lost as you guys are. But again, that's just another example of what I was saying earlier this morning. It's just pseudo-academic gibberish. The negative negates the negation? I mean, so none of that made sense, and it shouldn't have really, none of that should have made sense.

You know, don't worry, you're not alone in that, I don't know what that means either. But that's just an example of how you need to, I like to describe myself as a godfather apologist, and what I mean by that.

If you've seen the Godfather movies, I forget if it's in part one or part two where young Michael Corleone says to one of his hirelings there, he says, my father taught me one thing, he always taught me to keep my friends close and my enemies closer.

So that's what I mean when I say I'm a godfather apologist, because I keep my, I read my enemies. I read my enemies. That's how you become a better theologian and a better apologist against worldviews like critical race theory.

You read the critical race theorists. Yeah, you're going to make them more money, but what you can do is establish a legitimate street cred as being a subject matter about what these folks believe and what they teach because you're reading them in their own words.

So that's what I mean when I say I'm a godfather apologist, because I keep my enemies close. I read my enemies. Bert and I, we study our enemies. In critical race theory, the prevailing negativity, to quote Marcuse, is systemic racism.

That's the prevailing negativity, to use a term that Marcuse just used. Remember what Marcuse said. He said that the new state is the truth of the old. The new state is the truth of the old. In critical race theory, the truth of the old is that America is as racist today as it was in the 1860s.

Reproblematizing. Reaching back in history, grabbing a settled issue, grabbing a settled issue, bringing it into today and reproblematizing that issue as if it hasn't been settled. What's the term, Stacey Abrams?

She's running for governor in Georgia right now. She likes to hop on the term voting rights or voting suppression, voter suppression. There's no voter suppression. Heard her say this yesterday. There's not a place here.

If you're a registered voter and you're black in the United States, you can go vote. You know what? White voter has to be registered too.

Where's the suppression? Where's the suppression?

So you got people like Stacey Abrams, whoop, let me reach back into 1965 when black people couldn't vote. Bring that into 2022 and yell at the top of my voice in front of a microphone and act as if black people still can't vote.

Voter suppression, just like that. That's what they do. Reach back, let's bring it up.

Redlining.

Well, can't get a house. Black person can't get a house because, you know, white person got a house, but black person getting a house. Well, that black person shouldn't have had a credit score of 340.

Listen, I was in banking for over 20 years. That's just how the mortgage business works. Maybe you didn't get that house because your credit score is so low. Maybe it had nothing to do with the color of your skin.

But nope, let me reach back there and bring that up. So the truth of the old is re-problematizing. The truth of the old is that America is inherently and irreparably racist. It always has been and always will be.