What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[Ken]

In the meantime let's be clear that neomarxist are not "Marxist revolutionaries" in the sense advocated by Karl Marx. They advocate revolution by ideological dissemination, not violent overthrow of government. They support revolutionary politics, not revolutionary war. Let's stop confusing classical Marxism with Leftist neomarxism.

Fine. Point taken. Personally I'm neither repelled nor attracted to any sort of neomarxist philosophy or analysis. It is just an analytical tool like any other. Sometimes it might be informative, sometimes not.

But I don't think it is really even necessary to have a "school of thought" about everything. As you wrote"

A school of thought that would address legitimate racial/minority issues from a pro-Western angle would be preferable to me.

I'm not sure what this even means. Marxism is a "western" philosophy too. But I tend to think legitimate racial/minority issues like any other issues should be addressed on their own merits and that we don't need some "school of thought" in order to do so. And "schools of thought" whether from the left or right mostly get in the way of finding effective solutions to real-world problems.

[Falco Underhill]

One way Critical Race Theory can be transferred to teachers is through attendance at seminars and conferences, and courses offered by private providers. Educators must obtain so many hours (depending on the state) of professional development training to renew their teaching certificate.

CRT theorists have developed Critical Professional Development (neomarxist) training courses, and in some states these courses have been accredited as courses teachers can take to fulfill that requirement.

It is these courses that states are attempting to ban from public schools.

This is a good thing, imo. Critical Professional Development courses are designed to transform teachers and students into neomarxist activists.

Whenever I see the word critical nowadays I have to wonder whether it means critical in the classical sense of "critical thinking" or whether it means critical in the neomarxist sense of "unmasking oppressive structures."

Neomarxists seem to love words that have two meanings and are hard to decipher if you're not in the know.

[Ken]

One way Critical Race Theory can be transferred to teachers is through attendance at seminars and conferences, and courses offered by private providers. Educators must obtain so many hours (depending on the state) of professional development training to renew their teaching certificate.

CRT theorists have developed Critical Professional Development (neomarxist) training courses, and in some states these courses have been accredited as courses teachers can take to fulfill that requirement.

It is these courses that states are attempting to ban from public schools.

This is a good thing, imo. Critical Professional Development courses are designed to transform teachers and students into neomarxist activists.

Whenever I see the word critical nowadays I have to wonder whether it means critical in the classical sense of "critical thinking" or whether it means critical in the neomarxist sense of "unmasking oppressive structures."

Neomarxists seem to love words that have two meanings and are hard to decipher if you're not in the know.

I've been to dozens and dozens of professional development seminars and trainings over the years. Some held by the districts I worked for as part of back-to-school training. Others that were seminars I attended on my own time. They are almost all universally useless except for the few that were very subject-specific. Like training seminars on specific science equipment or lab techniques.

There is a whole industry of former educators and consultants of various types who grift off of and cash in on these professional development requirements with all sorts of garbage courses. I have never been to any CRT-related professional development courses so I have no idea what that would involve. But I'd get rid of nearly all of this generic professional development stuff. A lot of them just promote whatever is the latest educational fad and then a year or two later move on to the next one. Most of it useless.

It goes like this:

1. State certification agencies and state legislatures demand certain numbers of professional development hours to maintain teaching certifications. Here in Washington the requirement is 100 hours every 5 years.

2. Highly-paid school district administrators discover that providing relevant and engaging professional development instruction themselves is a LOT harder than they realized, (even though that is exactly what they expect of their teaching staff on a daily basis!). And so instead of developing and teaching the material themselves, they hire turn-key educational consulting companies to come to it for tens of thousands of dollars per session.

3. A whole industry of educational grifters and consultants has developed to provide turn-key "professional development solutions" to school districts around the country because of all of that cash there for the taking. Some of them former teachers or administrators. Some of them business consulting types. And some of them academic types.

About the only good professional development is that offered on very specific technical topics or centered on teaching specific courses like AP Chemistry.

[Falco Underhill]

The Texas Policy Foundation says CRT has effected most accredited courses in that state. So apparently the danger is more or less in different states.

https://www.texaspolicy.com/we-shall-ov ... velopment/

Btw, another one of those words in the neomarxist lexicon with 2 meanings:

"Democracy."

Socialists in general believe "socialism is the only true democracy." So, when they warn against some supposed "danger to our democracy" they often mean something by it very different than the rest of us would.

(Anything threatening their vision of socialist utopia.)

As Eric Voegelin noted, they use language to create their own "secondary" reality that parallels our first reality. (First reality meaning real reality, secondary reality is their imaginary reality.)

If they seem to inhabit a different universe when they speak, this is why. They take this business of achieving Utopia very seriously.

[Falco Underhill]

That is a 6 year old film about Ferguson, MO and the killing of Trayvon Martin. When you hear people using the term today it is 99% likely to be conservatives in a lather about something vaguely related to social justice or racism with which they disapprove. Do you not think that racism and social justice are necessary and important issues to address in this country?

As for the whole "neomarxism" stuff? That is all YOU overlaying the writings of an old irrelevant 1960s leftist writer Herbert Marcuse (who died over 40 years ago) onto a present day movement. And who obviously was NOT writing about the social justice movements of today, two generations after his death.

My point is that when today, in 2022, you hear conservatives throwing around the term "woke" to each other they mostly don't actually know what they are talking about and it sounds weird and silly to anyone who isn't part of that hermetically sealed ecosystem.

Regardless of how the word "Woke" is used in popular culture it had a specific meaning in that movie.

According to Wikipedia —

The phrase "stay woke" refers to a continuing awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice and came to widespread use as a result of Black Lives Matter

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Wo ... r_Movement

See that? Stay woke refers to "a continuing awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice." BLM didn't invent the phrase but "it came to widespread use as a result of Black Lives Matter."

Woke is therefore synonymous with the word "critical consciousness," which has its roots in critical theory.

"Critical Consciousness" could be defined as "a continuing awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice."

You may not like "Woke" as a popular designation for this type of awareness, but we didn't make it up, they did.

Btw, there's a whole neomarxist "science" focused on how to develop "critical consciousness." Developing "critical consciousness", or "waking people up," is the whole objective of Critical Theory.

"Critical consciousness" is inseparable from "critical praxis." (practice, activism) Some may even sum it up in the word Change.

[Falco Underhill]

woke can also refer to awareness of how cultural norms are shaped by market forces. To be aware of this is to be above this — straight from Marcuse and the neomarxists.



My personal opinion is most Anabaptists have long been aware that market forces/materialism can have a degrading influence on culture, a general observation of those who are "separate" from the "world." They don't need to be "woke," they're already awake.

[Falco Underhill]

What is woke?

[Falco Underhill]

What is woke?

[Falco Underhill]

Note in the above video how Dr. Smith said woke has its origins in late 60s early 70s when it meant "consciousness," and that it specifically means "consciousness of systemic issues."

See the CRT there?

WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP.

They did.

[temporal1]

Deserves a revisit with SCOTUS now under vicious attack - led by leaders in the other 2 branches of U.S. government!
video / 58min

Woke Law Schools

Video/Discussion (not sure the link works for everyone)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/aaron-sib ... 42157.html

In this video, Aaron Sibarium discusses the ways in which Woke ideologues are taking over law schools, and what can be done about it.

This is really what it's all about: when Antonio Gramsci said, "we must re-evaluate what it means to rule," this is exactly what he meant. He was telling his acolytes to become teachers, to get into administrative positions, to create bureaucracies and NGOs. Administrative positions, bureaucracies and NGOs are all ways to effect government policy.

Aaron Sibarium says if we want public educational institutions not to be platforms for Woke ideologies then we need to become teachers and administrative officials ourselves within these institutions. He stresses the importance of administrative positions, and that teaching positions aren't enough.

Presumably such a strategy might not appeal to some Mennonites with a "two kingdom" theology.

He doesn't really address what we can do about bureaucracies and NGOs specifically.

Most Christians I assume do not relish these things with the religious fervor of Gramsciite activists.

your last sentence may be a bit optimistic.