Professor Delgado was one of my law school professors back in the early 1980s. In fact, I was in a seminar that published an article on whether "inopportune IQ" research could be banned. I realize now that it was an early entry into what would become CRT.
Unless he obtained a doctorate after 1983, he is not "Dr." Delgado.
Thanks for pointing this out, Peter. I used 'Dr.' because he has an honorary doctorate, and also because the initial title was, "The Strange Love of Dr. Delgado", to add a little levity.
It’s not scholarship in the traditional sense. It is radically subjective and wants to overturn what it sees as an unjust system, and it explicitly incorporates radical activism to achieve this aim in its teaching. Here’s how this situation came about: https://www.healthyopposition.com/art-and-the-academy
"In his highly influential career, he has become the eighth most cited legal scholar in US history and has authored 180 journal articles and dozens of books."
This is a testament to the deep crap this country is in.
"Elsewhere in Delgado’s fever dreams, as in his 1996 book The Coming Race War?, he expresses paranoid suspicions that Whites will try to end racial preference programs to deliberately provoke people of color to rise up, which will give Whites a pretext to set the headbangers on them and then take control of the country."
The racial preference programs should have been nipped in the bud.
The elevation of racial issues is just one of many Acts of Societal Disruption perpetrated on Western Civilization. The purpose, of course, is to destroy our civilization, thereby giving complete control to the Deep State.
This devolution of our civilization can be laid at the feet of insouciant whites who allowed it to happen.
He sounds kind of flaky. Amazing his ideas caught on so much. I did an image search on him and looks completely white himself. How does having a Mexican father give him victim points?
Let me put it this way. Would you be happier if one side pushed and pushed with no push-back at all from the other side? I would argue that some polarization is necessary in a healthy democracy. It forces both sides to educate themselves about the issues.
Polarization has the negative connotation of refusing to discuss and debate. When this happens, democracy can no longer function.
There is an expectation that democratic discussion will be in good faith, and that its leaders will be competent. The Left’s failure to do this, as evidenced by Delgado’s “scholarship” paired with ESG corporate policies, has led to our current polarization. This is not only bad for democracy, it’s good for authoritarian structures.
In an article urgently criticizing the alliance of identity politics and global corporations (“Sometimes the Consensus is Phony”), you wrote that, “We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden. How, you may ask? It's not too complicated. Just go into the voting booth and vote.” This may be coming to pass.
Maybe you’ve changed your mind, but voting, along with the kind of activism I suggest, seems like a reasonable alternative to polarization and authoritarianism.
I see the current polarization as preferable to what existed previously. Before the rise of alternative media, we had an ideological monoculture that dominated all of the chokepoints in the flow of information.
That monoculture is breaking up. This may seem traumatic to some people, but so does any change. We have to get used to thinking for ourselves instead of delegating our thinking to others.
You talk about the current “refusal to discuss and debate.” What do you think we had previously? We had a manufactured consensus that very effectively excluded dissent. That “consensus” is falling apart, and we are now seeing reality in all its ugliness. Again, I see that as a positive development. We’re returning to normal.
Yes, before alternative media we had an ideological monoculture, or close to it, which might have been a kind of faux-consensus. And that monoculture is being exposed, which is good. But to the extent that irrational discourse, even violent discourse—instead of rational discussion—is needlessly replacing that monoculture, it seems to be senselessly destroying a potential for democracy.
The rise of irrational discourse was happening with or without polarization. Once an ideological monoculture is firmly in place, the people within it will begin to say and do things that deviate from reality. That deviation will lead to policies that have increasingly adverse effects. Eventually so many contradictions will pile up between the fake reality and the real one that the entire structure will come crashing down.
I agree that the current crisis is frightening, but postponing it would only make things worse. Many will disagree with me on this point. They believe we can get a reprieve from the current system by offering to work with it.
To me, that option is unrealistic. First, there are too many true believers within the current system, including people in authority — their reflex is to crack down violently on dissent. Second, rational discourse is too dangerous to the wealth and power of many individuals. They have too much to lose.
Look at the Gini index. More and more economic power is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, essentially the top 1%. How can such a system reform itself?
The impetus for change will not come from within. It will come from without, most likely from non-WEIRD people who are used to acting collectively at the grassroots. They see such action as normal. In contrast, WEIRD people are too individualistic and too habituated to delegating collective action to the State. For the most part, they will be grateful onlookers.
Peter, you wrote, “The rise of irrational discourse was happening with or without polarization. Once an ideological monoculture is firmly in place, the people within it will begin to say and do things that deviate from reality. That deviation will lead to policies that have increasingly adverse effects. Eventually so many contradictions will pile up between the fake reality and the real one that the entire structure will come crashing down.”
Yeah, and it’s really funny to watch the show! Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we engage in rational discourse to try to work within the system. The time for that ended 50 or 60 years ago. I’ve argued quite the opposite in the past. I always suggest legal and activist strategies in my articles, weaponizing satire and humor where possible.
Still, you say that polarization is better than monoculture because, “it forces both sides to learn about the issues”. Maybe. But when a society is polarized, how does learning happen?
Again, I say use comedy and satire. There is a great opportunity now to laugh at the Left’s crumbling monoculture, its increasingly comical diversity failures, its trans-fat house of horrors, like what Rufo has done on Twitter with Maher at NPR. That was brilliant. Or Google’s Gemini. And also just to strategically leverage its inherent weakness, the way DeSantis and other governors are doing with DEI programs.
Thousands of activists, artists and writers are indeed exposing and laughing at and taking advantage of the Left’s comical monoculture of stupidity. It may be possible to undermine it in this way. This is preferable to revolts, which have such uncertain outcomes no matter who wins. (Good to remember that Andy Ngo puts the total number of Antifa members in the USA at only 200 or 300.)
Which non-WEIRD people are going to fight the system? Only Chinese Americans are still collectivist and they tend to be passive aggressive and conflict-adverse. South Asians are prone to integrate into hierarchies.
Delgado and his ilk act as an insurgency and a quite successful one too as the" establishment "always moves to accommodate their grievances in one way or another. When the Biden regime's response to Trump and the MAGA voting cohort was to admit up to 10 million non white illegals to speed up the reduction of the white population to below the 50 %mark. Which has been quietly supported by a section of Republicans too who want to see any white nationalism real or otherwise eradicated by whatever means necessary. But when it comes to education the starting point for white pupils being subjected to stress filled classes was the bussing policy from the 70s.
You'd be surprised of who is Jewish and who is not. We have to hit early life for a reason. I worked in the Jewish Quarter a few years ago, I've seen Jews who are quite Aryan in their appearance and others I thought were clearly Jewish only to find out they were not.
Are you one of the few people on the internet oblivious to the Jewish Question? They've played a crucial role in the degeneration of Western civilization.
Professor Delgado was one of my law school professors back in the early 1980s. In fact, I was in a seminar that published an article on whether "inopportune IQ" research could be banned. I realize now that it was an early entry into what would become CRT.
Unless he obtained a doctorate after 1983, he is not "Dr." Delgado.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1983-delgado.pdf
Thanks for pointing this out, Peter. I used 'Dr.' because he has an honorary doctorate, and also because the initial title was, "The Strange Love of Dr. Delgado", to add a little levity.
FYI - I have a Juris Doctor, but ethics rule prohibit me from calling myself "Dr."
More's the pity.
His work is actual hate speech.
Can someone explain how the CRT drivel is classed as scholarship? All of their arguments are unfalsifiable which automatically disqualifies.
It’s not scholarship in the traditional sense. It is radically subjective and wants to overturn what it sees as an unjust system, and it explicitly incorporates radical activism to achieve this aim in its teaching. Here’s how this situation came about: https://www.healthyopposition.com/art-and-the-academy
"In his highly influential career, he has become the eighth most cited legal scholar in US history and has authored 180 journal articles and dozens of books."
This is a testament to the deep crap this country is in.
"Elsewhere in Delgado’s fever dreams, as in his 1996 book The Coming Race War?, he expresses paranoid suspicions that Whites will try to end racial preference programs to deliberately provoke people of color to rise up, which will give Whites a pretext to set the headbangers on them and then take control of the country."
The racial preference programs should have been nipped in the bud.
The elevation of racial issues is just one of many Acts of Societal Disruption perpetrated on Western Civilization. The purpose, of course, is to destroy our civilization, thereby giving complete control to the Deep State.
This devolution of our civilization can be laid at the feet of insouciant whites who allowed it to happen.
He sounds kind of flaky. Amazing his ideas caught on so much. I did an image search on him and looks completely white himself. How does having a Mexican father give him victim points?
Is polarization necessarily a bad thing?
Let me put it this way. Would you be happier if one side pushed and pushed with no push-back at all from the other side? I would argue that some polarization is necessary in a healthy democracy. It forces both sides to educate themselves about the issues.
Polarization has the negative connotation of refusing to discuss and debate. When this happens, democracy can no longer function.
There is an expectation that democratic discussion will be in good faith, and that its leaders will be competent. The Left’s failure to do this, as evidenced by Delgado’s “scholarship” paired with ESG corporate policies, has led to our current polarization. This is not only bad for democracy, it’s good for authoritarian structures.
In an article urgently criticizing the alliance of identity politics and global corporations (“Sometimes the Consensus is Phony”), you wrote that, “We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden. How, you may ask? It's not too complicated. Just go into the voting booth and vote.” This may be coming to pass.
Maybe you’ve changed your mind, but voting, along with the kind of activism I suggest, seems like a reasonable alternative to polarization and authoritarianism.
I see the current polarization as preferable to what existed previously. Before the rise of alternative media, we had an ideological monoculture that dominated all of the chokepoints in the flow of information.
That monoculture is breaking up. This may seem traumatic to some people, but so does any change. We have to get used to thinking for ourselves instead of delegating our thinking to others.
You talk about the current “refusal to discuss and debate.” What do you think we had previously? We had a manufactured consensus that very effectively excluded dissent. That “consensus” is falling apart, and we are now seeing reality in all its ugliness. Again, I see that as a positive development. We’re returning to normal.
Yes, before alternative media we had an ideological monoculture, or close to it, which might have been a kind of faux-consensus. And that monoculture is being exposed, which is good. But to the extent that irrational discourse, even violent discourse—instead of rational discussion—is needlessly replacing that monoculture, it seems to be senselessly destroying a potential for democracy.
The rise of irrational discourse was happening with or without polarization. Once an ideological monoculture is firmly in place, the people within it will begin to say and do things that deviate from reality. That deviation will lead to policies that have increasingly adverse effects. Eventually so many contradictions will pile up between the fake reality and the real one that the entire structure will come crashing down.
I agree that the current crisis is frightening, but postponing it would only make things worse. Many will disagree with me on this point. They believe we can get a reprieve from the current system by offering to work with it.
To me, that option is unrealistic. First, there are too many true believers within the current system, including people in authority — their reflex is to crack down violently on dissent. Second, rational discourse is too dangerous to the wealth and power of many individuals. They have too much to lose.
Look at the Gini index. More and more economic power is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, essentially the top 1%. How can such a system reform itself?
The impetus for change will not come from within. It will come from without, most likely from non-WEIRD people who are used to acting collectively at the grassroots. They see such action as normal. In contrast, WEIRD people are too individualistic and too habituated to delegating collective action to the State. For the most part, they will be grateful onlookers.
Peter, you wrote, “The rise of irrational discourse was happening with or without polarization. Once an ideological monoculture is firmly in place, the people within it will begin to say and do things that deviate from reality. That deviation will lead to policies that have increasingly adverse effects. Eventually so many contradictions will pile up between the fake reality and the real one that the entire structure will come crashing down.”
Yeah, and it’s really funny to watch the show! Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we engage in rational discourse to try to work within the system. The time for that ended 50 or 60 years ago. I’ve argued quite the opposite in the past. I always suggest legal and activist strategies in my articles, weaponizing satire and humor where possible.
Still, you say that polarization is better than monoculture because, “it forces both sides to learn about the issues”. Maybe. But when a society is polarized, how does learning happen?
Again, I say use comedy and satire. There is a great opportunity now to laugh at the Left’s crumbling monoculture, its increasingly comical diversity failures, its trans-fat house of horrors, like what Rufo has done on Twitter with Maher at NPR. That was brilliant. Or Google’s Gemini. And also just to strategically leverage its inherent weakness, the way DeSantis and other governors are doing with DEI programs.
Thousands of activists, artists and writers are indeed exposing and laughing at and taking advantage of the Left’s comical monoculture of stupidity. It may be possible to undermine it in this way. This is preferable to revolts, which have such uncertain outcomes no matter who wins. (Good to remember that Andy Ngo puts the total number of Antifa members in the USA at only 200 or 300.)
Which non-WEIRD people are going to fight the system? Only Chinese Americans are still collectivist and they tend to be passive aggressive and conflict-adverse. South Asians are prone to integrate into hierarchies.
Why do the interviews with Rodrigo make me think of Carlos Castaneda?
To use words like "superior" and "inferior" when referring to different population groups is something I cannot go along with.
I agree. That’s why I wrote that this is “a one-sided and oversimplified framing of the issue”.
If anyone wants to share their experience with woke injustice, they can write about it here: https://ojalart.com/ojals-hot-button-presscall-for-contest-submissionscounter-revolutionary-stories/
Delgado and his ilk act as an insurgency and a quite successful one too as the" establishment "always moves to accommodate their grievances in one way or another. When the Biden regime's response to Trump and the MAGA voting cohort was to admit up to 10 million non white illegals to speed up the reduction of the white population to below the 50 %mark. Which has been quietly supported by a section of Republicans too who want to see any white nationalism real or otherwise eradicated by whatever means necessary. But when it comes to education the starting point for white pupils being subjected to stress filled classes was the bussing policy from the 70s.
So neither Richard Delgado or his wife are Jewish?
The wife looks very suspicious...
You'd be surprised of who is Jewish and who is not. We have to hit early life for a reason. I worked in the Jewish Quarter a few years ago, I've seen Jews who are quite Aryan in their appearance and others I thought were clearly Jewish only to find out they were not.
His Wikipedia entry doesn’t say he is. Why would it matter?
Are you one of the few people on the internet oblivious to the Jewish Question? They've played a crucial role in the degeneration of Western civilization.
I was hoping I wouldn’t be hearing that here. I’ve heard enough to last a lifetime. And I’m paying for this site too.
Honestly I share that sentiment. It's all I've heard for years, yet the question still remains in this case and point.
Lawful versus legal explanation:
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/edW5VCcWhJb