Best Parts of the Wokeness Debate - Neil Shenvi/Rasool Berry

All right, well, let's jump right into it today. This is going to be a good video. We're going to go into some of the critical moments,

I believe, of the critical race theory debate with Neil Shenvey. I'm going to rip Razul a little bit here, because Razul is, he seems like a nice guy, but he's trying to use typical social justice warrior tactics on you to try to trick you.

And I'm just going to expose it. It's going to be great. But before we do, I saw Thabiti Anya Willey retweet this tweet from John Anwuchequa.

If you don't know John Anwuchequa, he's the dude that took a bunch of money from the Southern Baptist Convention and then left the

Southern Baptist Convention because they were too racist, apparently. And originally, he said he would give the money back, but he's definitely not going to give that money back.

This is hilarious. Completely robbed you guys blind. Anyway, Thabiti retweeted this, which is appropriate, because Thabiti himself, do you remember when he said there was no woke church movement?

Or not woke church, social justice movement. And then I instantly found videos with Thabiti in them talking about the social justice movement.

So it's just like a tactic. It's just a lie. But so now he's tweeting this lie. He's retweeting this lie. Ready? Listen to this.

This is funny. I actually don't think this is wrong, by the way. John is right about this. Listen to this. People who use the term woke or any of its derivatives in 2020 are not unlike people who are still dabbing in 2018.

And then he has this gif of Bill Gates dabbing. He says, all the original adherents have left behind the statements and gestures that are now being used to describe something completely other than the original.

He's right. All of the original adherents are running from this term. And you want to know why? Less than two years later, they're running from this term.

It's a joke. It's a meme. We've robbed it of all of its value and cachet. They can't use it anymore because they know it's a joke.

And we made it a joke. We've made their own terms a complete joke.

And we did it through memes. We did it through funny videos. We did it through mockery and all of this kind of stuff.

And now they're running from their own materials. Eric Mason wrote a book called Woke Church two years ago, almost to the day, two years ago,

October 2nd, 2018. And we memed on this bad. It's a terrible book.

It's a terrible, terrible book. And we memed on it. We made Woke Church. It's actually a liability to call yourself woke at this point.

And this happened a long time ago. They've been running from this term for at least a year, probably a lot longer than that.

So they released the book. And within a year, they're running from the term because it's such a joke. We've made it a joke.

We've rendered it a liability. Good job. And so because they failed so epically, now they're trying to make it seem like it's just that the nerds are still talking about it.

The nerds are still talking about it when in reality, what ended up happening is we've destroyed the whole project instantly through memes.

That's how we did it, through memes. And so now you can't even call yourself the Woke Church, even though less than two years ago you were.

And you were proud of it. And you thought you were going to start a movement. And you didn't. And it was a failure. So now they've got to try a different strategy.

Well, it's just dabbing. You know what I mean? It's just like dabbing, you nerds. Oh man, this is too good, man.

And it doesn't matter though, John. Here's the thing. You can call it whatever you want. We're going to meme on it until it's defeated.

And it's going to be defeated because it's error. And Christ won't stand for error in his church. So keep trying, John. Try another term.

Try something else. We've already destroyed reparations as well. Gold, hallelujah. It's a joke now.

It's a joke. Maybe you should cool off Eric Mason because he's been involved in both of these failures. I don't know.

But let's jump into what I want to talk about today. Critical race theory. There's a few sections of this debate that I think are pretty important, pretty interesting.

I want to comment on. The first section comes off pretty much right away where Pastor Razul Berry, Razul is talking about his upbringing, how he was educated and stuff like that.

And he's talking about this idea that, you know, he's known about these ideas that he talks about way before he was influenced by critical theory.

So it can't be critical theory. It's just these ideas. We've been believing these for a hundred years. Listen to what he has to say here, because this is very interesting.

And actually I have a story from my own life that I think is relevant here. So let's listen to what he has to say.

I just a little bit of background. I'm from born and raised in inner city, Philadelphia, went to university of Pennsylvania, majored in Africana studies and sociology.

And so I was all up in the social sciences as a discipline, as a perspective, became a

Christian as a freshman, was very much formed by evangelicalism as I was developing in my own faith.

And, but throughout that process, both from an academic training standpoint, even though that was my degree, like this never was a thing that came up as I'd never heard about it.

Like, in fact, I didn't start hearing about it like a lot of Black Christians until we, as we were talking about issues of injustice, people were late, putting that label upon me.

So I started saying here is that he went to school and all of like the social, social sciences and all the places you'd expect to get indoctrinated by critical theory, but he never even heard about it.

The first time he heard about it was when he was accused of being a critical race theorist by Christians who heard him talking about race.

And he's thinking he's making a point here. He thinks he's thinking he's making a point in his favor, but, but he's not, but he's not because social sciences have been infected with critical theory for decades at this point.

And here's the thing, like they don't always cite their sources. In fact, we've had people,

Christians on record that teach liberation theology ideas and say, and have admitted,

I don't cite my sources because I don't want the guards to be up. I'm not, I don't really know if I want people to know where I'm getting this from.

The guy from Southeastern said that and teachers in secular institutions do that as well. In fact, I had a class.

I was also all up in the social sciences as well. When I went to the university of Maryland, I had a class called

Afro Caribbean philosophy. It was called Afro Caribbean philosophy.

I've talked about this on the show before. And the teacher for this class was from Howard university, a historically black college.

So they had a program where Maryland would borrow teachers from Howard and then Mer and Howard would borrow teachers from Maryland.

And they'd kind of do these exchanges. And so my teacher was a black guy teaching me Afro Caribbean philosophy.

And I'll never forget. He told me that, that in a class, he told me that because I used the word, the language

English, that means I'm oppressed currently because the, using the language of my, of my captor or my, the person who conquered my lands means that not only were those people back then oppressed and forced to use the

English language, but I'm being forced to use the English language, which is demonstrating that I am oppressed because I don't speak my native tongue anymore.

That's what he told me. And guys, that's, that's critical theory.

Now he didn't tell me this professor from Howard did not tell me that that was critical theory. He told me it was

Afro Caribbean philosophy, but it's definitely critical theory. What he said to me, and that's insane, by the way, obviously that's insane.

So the thing is you can imbibe critical theory without knowing you're imbibing critical theory.

We've all said that. And that's the thing. That's why we should take it out of the theoretical and into the streets.

Cause I don't care if you own the term critical theorist or not. What I care about is what you actually believe.

And if what you actually believe is informed by reality and by the scriptures and scriptural methodology, or is it based around critical theory?

Are you just making assumptions that you've learned in critical theory? And Razul definitely is doing that.

In fact, we're going to talk about that in a minute because he talks about George Floyd and stuff like that.

And I think it's just very interesting. So, so I don't care. I mean, I'll use the term critical theory because it's an, it's an effective term.

And frankly, I use it because I know it triggers people. There you go. And it's an accurate term as well, because this is an actual thing.

I mean, you know, Neil Shenvey did a fantastic job earlier in this and he said, here's where I'm getting my definition of critical theory.

By the way, this is the most cited document in all of critical theory ever. So if there is an authority on critical theory, which

I understand people believe certain things, certain aspects, blah, blah, blah. But if there was going to be an authority on critical theory, it would be this document.

Here's the definition. Great job. Great job. Because critical theory is an actual thing, but nobody is saying that you have to believe every single thing about critical theory to be influenced by critical theory.

Nobody's saying that. Nobody's saying that you can be very influenced by critical theory and reject some of it.

Now, I mean, obviously that that's obviously true. So why do we even have this discussion? Let's continue.

Let's, let's talk about the next section of this video that I think also illustrates this point. All right.

In this section, Rasul makes this very weird comparison about critical theory and alchemy.

I want you to hear this because Rasul thinks he's making some kind of a point here and it's very weird.

Let's, let's, let's talk about this again. So I'm gonna get myself in a lot of trouble, but the word chemistry comes from alchemy, which referred to the earlier set of practices that encompass elements of chemistry, metallurgy, philosophy, astronomy, astrology, mysticism, and medicine.

And of course, when we think about alchemy, the biggest thing, of the idea of turning other materials into gold.

And yet over time, that word got to a place and changed in the significance and all of its clarity to bringing it to a point now where it involves theories and discoveries that function within kind of the realm of established science.

Okay. So if you're following him, he's going to talk about critical theory. And the example he uses, he's like, well, chemistry comes from the word alchemy.

And over time it comes to mean something else besides all the magic and the mysticism of alchemy that we all know about.

Are you following him here? Let's, let's hear him out because this is bizarre. Now, I kind of feel like sometimes

I use the, I might use the word chemist and someone is investing into me all of the alchemy history and all of the converse, you know, problematic astronomy and mysticism philosophies that I'm like, well, that's not what

I mean by when I say a chemist. Okay. So Razul, Pastor Razul has said this and let's just believe all things because this is one of the most bizarre things

I've ever heard. He says that sometimes he's talking to his friends about chemistry, you know, the science, chemistry, you know, you mix the chemicals, all that stuff.

And sometimes he's talked to people that hear him saying alchemy. And so when he says chemistry, you know,

I'm going to go to my chemistry class or I'm going to get a chemistry set. Razul is telling us that some in his life, some people have heard him saying, oh, so you're trying to turn things into gold.

You're doing like magic spells and stuff. Interesting. Love believes all things, but I'm not an idiot.

I don't think that's ever happened. I really don't think that's ever happened. I could be wrong.

Let me just say that at the outset. It's possible that Pastor Razul here has talked to his friends about chemistry.

I'm sure he very regularly talked to his friends about the science of chemistry. And I'm sure that maybe one or two of them has said to him, you know what?

I like chemistry too. Like, let's get together and let's do some spells to turn this, uh, this penny into gold.

That's a weird take, man. That's weird. If that's happened, man, that's weird.

That's pretty weird. I don't think that's actually happened, but maybe it has. I don't know, but, but you see what he's trying to do here.

He's trying to say, well, chemistry is the definitions change over time. The same thing has happened with critical theory, but you see that's, that's, that's not the case, right?

Because again, people on our side of this discussion are look, are looking at your individual beliefs and we're saying, oh, that belief right there, that one's influenced by critical theory.

And here's how I know that. And we're going to talk about one of these in just a second, but man, what, what a weird comparison, you know, you know, the word spelling, like, you know,

I'm very good at spelling. That word spell comes from the word spell, like, you know, like magic spell.

So does anyone think when you say, I'm going to go to the spelling bee that you're actually going to do some incantations is that, does anyone think that?

No, because this is obviously very different than saying Razul, some of your beliefs are influenced by critical theory, whether you know it or not, because the definition of critical theory.

So though some people will define it slightly differently, the core fundamentals haven't changed. And Neil did a great job talking about the core fundamentals, which some of which you believe my friend.

So own it, man, own it, grow a little backbone, stiffen up that upper lip and own it.

And so in the same way, there is, I think one, a problem with what

I'm addressing. If this was merely in the realm of the academy, in theorists, we wouldn't really be having this conversation.

But great point, Razul. I actually agree with Razul here. And this is my main criticism of Neil Shenvey, because he's great with the academic stuff, but he's not taking it to the streets with regularity.

And Razul wants to take it to the streets, good on him, because you want to connect the theory to reality.

So we need to take it to the streets. And Razul, that's the problem, because so many of you and your buddies are employing ideas that come from critical theory to the streets, and it ends up in disaster.

You end up saying things about people that are not true. You end up slandering and mocking, or not mocking, slandering and libeling people all the time, and it's because you're so influenced by critical theory.

Let's continue. What's happened is, and again, how I discovered the term is, and how many of my other brothers and sisters in the faith and of color have experienced this, is we're talking about George Floyd's being killed after his being knelt on for eight minutes and 46 seconds, and saying this is unjust, something should be changed, that we live in a racist society.

Stop right there. Stop right there. Because you just did it, Razul. You just employed critical theory.

Whether you know it or not, I'm making no claim about what you know, right? But what you did is you just did that.

Because on the one hand, you can say, okay, George Floyd was killed, it was unjust, the cop had his knee on his neck, that's unjust because a cop shouldn't be using that knee hold whatever.

That's fine. That's not critical theory. That's a statement of opinion, and that's a statement that probably is breeding from a lot of ignorance.

You have no idea how to police probably, Razul. But okay, I can go with you there. I can go with you there, because that neck hold looked pretty bad to me as well.

But then you said something needs to be done about this. This is a racist law. Where did that come from?

Well, the only place it came from, Razul, is the fact that the person in this case was black, and the officer was white.

That's the only place it came from. And so you're assuming that racism is involved in something that you have no earthly idea if racism was involved.

And the only reason you can say that is because your mind is so corrupted by critical theory that you can just say that.

Because what evidence do you have that it's racism, Razul? You have none. And so why would you say that if you're a

Christian? Because a Christian can't say things that they don't know is not true. A Christian can't say things without knowing two or three witnesses.

You'd have to have at least two witnesses of the racism of that incident. You don't have any.

You don't have any. Because things like that have happened to white people as well. But nobody says it's racism, obviously, because the skin colors of the people involved.

That's the only thing you have. You've got the skin colors of the people involved, and so you just say something about someone that you have no idea if it's true or not.

That comes from critical theory, whether you want to accept it or not. Whether you want to accept it or not.

So we can have the debate about whether or not the George Floyd situation was just or unjust. I'm willing to have that debate.

What debate I'm not willing to have, because you have no earthly idea what you're talking about and neither do I, is whether or not that was due to racism.

Because there's nothing—he said this is racist law. There's nothing in the law that says you can do this chokehold to blacks but not whites.

There's nothing in the law that says if the officer's white and the victim is black, there's certain chokeholds you can use, but if it's opposite, there's nothing like that.

But yet you've said that the law is racist. So you explain to me how the law is racist in a way that doesn't employ critical theory but does employ the burden of two or more witnesses and stuff like that from the scripture, and then we can have a discussion.

But until you do, you need to keep your mouth shut on this because you're lying. That's it.

And you know how I know you're lying? According to scripture, because you don't know about anything regarding race except the fact of the skin colors involved.

That's it. That is it. That comes from critical theory, man, whether you like it or not.

And this whole idea of like, well, the first time I heard about critical theory was later, so I can't possibly have been influenced by critical—that's also very naive, because I was told

I was a Calvinist before I even knew what the term Calvinist meant. And you know what? They were right. I was very influenced by Calvinism before I even knew who

John Calvin was. Imagine that. That's true. I mean, I have to recognize that.

And so the reality is, Razul, like, I know you think you're making some kind of a point. You're making no points.

In fact, you're demonstrating that you are completely given over to critical theory through your analysis of George Floyd, which you have no idea if it's true or not.

But it doesn't matter if it's true or not because it's your storytelling, right? Then we are told, oh, you have just been held captive to this ideology called critical race theory.

Yeah, you're told that as you've just demonstrated it because you have no earthly idea if what you've just said is true unless you adopt critical theory.

And then, of course, what you've just said is true because you're part of the oppressed class and George Floyd is part of the oppressed class and the officer is part of the oppressor class.

Then it makes sense. But that's why people tell you you're given over to critical theory because you've just demonstrated it.

You can't even be fair at all, not even when you're trying to be. You're trying to be fair here. You're trying to run from critical theory here.

You're trying to demonstrate how reasonable you are here, and you can't help it. That's how given over you are. A Christian ought not to say that about Chauvin without knowledge of it.

And I know for a fact, Razul, you have no knowledge of it. And so now it's like, well, what are you talking about?

I'm just trying to respond to the very injustices that I'm seeing. You're trying to respond to the injustices, but you're doing it in a way that assumes things about the oppressor and the oppressed class.

That's what we're talking about. We've just told you what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that, OK, we can talk about the just use of force in policing.

We can definitely have that conversation. What we can't do, though, is assume racist motivations just because the victim in this case was black and the perpetrator was white.

We can't do that unless you're a critical theorist. Then you can do that, but that's not compatible with the scripture.

That's it. That's it. It's pretty simple, Razul. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

And so I think that one of the differences that exists is that there are people who have theories about race.

Like I said, they're uncritical race theories. And by the way, what I meant by that wasn't that, you know, yeah,

I've got this wild theory about race, Razul, where it's like, you know, like black people and white people, they're both made in the image of God and they both were affected by the fall.

And so they can both sin and they can both set up systems and theories and ideologies that are sinful.

And I don't just assume any black person killed by the cop was like totally innocent because, you know, nobody's innocent.

I get that. I don't just assume the worst about white people because they're, you know, obviously they're, they're, they're, they're, they're made in the image of God as well.

Like, so I, I have to establish matters, you know, on the evidence of two or more witnesses and stuff like that before I say something like,

I know it's wild. Call me a fundamentalist. But yeah, that's my theory about race. Like everyone's made in the image of God.

Everyone is affected by the fall. And so obviously I don't just take people's word for stuff.

I mean, that would be naive. I have to do things according to love, according to what love requires.

And guess what? Love requires that I obey Christ. And so I need to establish matters.

I hear people out. I weigh it against each other. I hear what you say. And then I hear what the other person says. And I find out, you know, who's got the truth on their side before I make a decision before I just assume things based on my storytelling, based on my ethnicity and stuff like that.

I know. Call me a fundie. It's a wild, wild theory on race. Have any kind of a concept of race as a social construct, but what

I have found, and again, I haven't read, you write a lot, bro. So I haven't, I haven't read it all, but we're all friends that I saw.

There wasn't a full robust analysis of what is happening today and how that is influenced by this concept of race, both, not just talking about slavery, not just talking about it's not robust until you adopt the assumptions of critical theory.

I mean, you don't have a full robust idea of race until you assume that critical theories, right.

About the oppressor and the oppressed, of course, obviously Roswell is ago, but the very concept of race and how it used now and how it's intrinsically been tainted by these unbiblical, sinful patterns of thinking about humans and organizing humans.

And so in terms of, yeah, exactly. Like, you know, if a black person and a white person are involved in an altercation, well, that's oppression.

And so the black person's instantly sainted and the white person's instantly guilty. Yeah. That's pretty wild, pretty wild stuff.

Let's, let's continue because I'm not trying to do this whole video, but I did want to talk about one other thing here because this is very instructive as well.

I want, this is probably the strongest argument that Roswell made in my opinion. And when somebody gives you this argument, you've got to be ready for this.

You've got to nail this one because this is something that convinces a lot of people.

Let me just be honest with you. If anything were to convince me to be a social justice worry, it'd be a presentation like this.

I don't think Roswell's presentation was very skilled at it, but some people are very skilled at it. So I want you to hear this and I want you to think about in your own mind, how you would respond to this.

And I'll tell you a little bit about what I thought when I heard this. So here's Roswell Berry again,

I, that person's experience and that you don't get the full truth from that unless you also are putting it next to people's other experiences in the way they interpret the gospel, man.

There's so much. I'm just going to try my best. There was so much there to respond to.

Um, it reminds me, uh, I'm at a reformed theological seminary, uh, right now. And, uh, shout out to Jay Harvey, the executive director.

Um, he, he said he gave me this, uh, as a, as a food for thought on this, the church is being brought ethical concerns and is responding with epistemological critique.

That's like a man telling you he's bleeding and you ask him, how did you come to that conclusion?

Um, that's part of what's happening here. That's hard to wrap your head around. It's similar to,

I feel like Job's friends of just kind of pummeling someone with a bunch of, you know, rejoinders when you're like, yo,

I'm suffering. And, but that's it right there. I don't think his presentation was that effective, but you see the idea here.

It's like we're suffering and you're coming at me with like, you're trying to get facts, right?

You're trying to understand like the facts of the matter. You're trying to, you're trying to, you know, find out how

I decided that I was suffering and stuff like that. And that, that, that call for empathy is what it is.

That's very effective in the social justice movement. And the reason why it's so effective in my opinion is that there's an element of truth there.

Absolutely. There's an element of truth there because when somebody tells you that something terrible has happened to them or to someone they know and that they're feeling sad or something like that, yes, you absolutely need to hear them out.

Of course you do. Of course you do. But the thing is like the social justice advocate, the social justice warrior wants you to do that and then never return to the rationality.

Never actually think things through. And that is where we have our problem because what they'll say is, well, if you don't march with me, then you must not care about me.

If you don't march with me and agree with me and call and become an anti -racist with me, well, then you are telling me to justify my pain.

That's effective. That's effective, especially on Christians, because Christians have a tender heart, right?

So you need to really ask yourself, how do I respond to this? How do

I respond to this? And, you know, here's, here's what I was thinking about this, that, you know, you know, this is, imagine with me for a second that you're married and your wife tells you that she was assaulted, right?

She tells, she comes to you, she's crying, she's in pain, obviously, emotional pain. She says,

I was assaulted. Of course, you would want to, you know, weep with her and be with her in that moment and comfort her.

And you would want to believe her and find out the, you know, who did this? You know what I mean? You'd want to take care of it, right?

You'd want to call the authorities. You'd want to take care of it yourself, whatever the situation may be. You'd want to believe her, right?

And suppose that, that she, she didn't really tell you a lot of the details. She just said I was assaulted and stuff like that.

Okay. You'd still believe her, right? But then suppose that she, she came to you the next week and said, well,

I was assaulted again. And she, again, again, was not forthcoming with the details. Again, was just trying to, you know, tell you about it, but not really trying to tell you too much.

Okay. You'd want to believe her, of course, because there could be a very good reason why she's not telling you.

And let's just say this continues for, for weeks and weeks and weeks. And eventually she starts to tell you some details and she's like, well, it was last

Tuesday. But you know, last Tuesday you were with her the entire day.

And so you start to think to yourself, like, what's going on here? And she tells you, well,

I was, I was assaulted. And they, they, they, they kidnapped me for a week.

And you're thinking to yourself, like, but I was with you all week. Like what's going on here?

So now you've got an issue because your wife is in front of you. She's upset. She's obviously emotionally traumatized in some way, but you, but, but the facts aren't fitting what she's telling you.

So something is going on, but it's not what she said is going on because you were with her.

You, you, you know what she was doing during the time she said she was being assaulted or she was being, so, so there's still a problem here.

That's not to say there's no pain here. There's something going on, but it's not what she's telling you. So what do you do?

Well, you've got to get to the bottom of it somehow. You've got to call in the authorities and you've got to call in your pastor.

You've got to pray over it. You've got to, there's stuff you've got to do. You obviously have an issue to solve, but it's not what she is saying that it is.

And here's the reality guys. Like the first time we heard about someone being killed by a white cop, of course, lots of empathy there.

A lot of, a lot of Christians had a lot of empathy there. I know that the narrative is that Christians don't care. It's just not true.

That's just always just assume that's again, part of critical theory. It's just not true. But then we've over time come to realize that a lot of the stories that we've heard, they didn't happen the way that the media told us they happened.

The facts were fuzzy at first, but then when we got the facts, they actually contradicted what we were told was going on.

We were told that these people were innocent as the driven snow. And then the video came out and we're like, Oh wait, but he reached for your gun and he came at you with a knife and he did this and he did that.

Oh, he was high as a freaking kite, like all kinds of different stuff. Over time, we've come to realize that the media has lied to us again and again and again and again.

And so much of this stuff, while tragic, it's not good that somebody dies. We were only given parts of the story to make it seem like white people were hunting blacks like crazy.

And then we looked at the statistics and we realized that actually it's the opposite of what you'd expect, given the narrative, right?

We've looked at the statistics and we realized that there's something going on here, but it's not what you've been telling us.

And so we've got some work to do, but it's very different than the work that you're saying we have to do.

That's the reality. That's the reality. You see, we're not critical theorists. And so we need to weigh things out.

We need evidence. We need to establish the matter. And we've been lied to so much at this point that when somebody comes to us with another story, we're going to get the facts first before we decide whether or not to act on it, because it's not just the empathy that you want.

This is the trick. This is the scam. They don't want you to just be sad with them. They want you to act.

And they're becoming more and more open about this as well. They're saying silence is violence. They're saying if you're not with us, you're against us.

You don't march with us, you're against us. You're part of the white supremacists. You're part of the problem if you don't march with us.

So it's not just the empathy. They don't just want us to weep with them. They want us to weep with them and then act.

And they often want us to weep with them about a lie. I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it.

I am. Christians should not do it because when you start thinking with your emotions and then acting based on those emotions without evidence, it leads to all kinds of disaster.

It's done it in history and it'll do it again. That's what I thought about when

I thought of this. You know, you're not going to win any friends.

You're not going to come across looking good. The optics of this are not good. The problem is when we've been lied to so much, it's actually sinful to not critically think about this kind of stuff when the media tries to spin another yarn about white cops hunting down blacks.

Does that happen? I'm sure it has in the past and I'm sure it will again. But the narrative is a lot.

And so we need to slow down, think about it. We can feel sorry for people that are suffering. Of course we can.

But the thing is, we can't act before we know what the situation is.

This is a biblical principle. I know this is against everything critical theory stands for, but I don't care.

The Bible requires me to establish the facts of a case first before I act. And it requires

Razul to do the same thing, even though obviously he doesn't care to do that. And this is the problem.

I don't care, if you call yourself a critical theorist or not, you are employing critical theory again and again and again, even in this debate where you're trying to distance yourself from it a little bit.

And that's the problem. And we do talk about those specific beliefs all the time.

And you still say, I'm being slandered and all this kind of stuff. Even as you spout critical theory in the process, we're not going to fall for it anymore,

Razul. We've been there, done that, and more people are waking up every day to these kinds of tricks.

You can keep trying, but I don't think it's going to work for much longer. Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful.