John Klar: CRT and eugenics in Vermont

Government institutions cannot eliminate subconscious or conscious prejudices. The 20th century’s infatuation with “science” and brain chemistry has resulted in great hubris by academics and government to do exactly that — change the brain. But it has always ended in disaster. This was the theme of Anthony Burgess’s iconic novel “A Clockwork Orange.” Years later, Burgess wrote, “It would seem that enforced conditioning of the mind, however good the social intention, has to be evil.”

John Klar

Critical Race Theory is evil. It seeks to condition young minds to eliminate subconscious racism. We are told by CRT proponents that “the system” that strives to be colorblind and treat all people equally is deficient due to subconscious prejudices. Their answer is to impose a new color-conscious system that will eliminate subconscious biases — starting in kindergarten.

A cursory examination of the science reveals just how idiotic this whole ideology is, and why eliminating racism by imposing racism really is as stupid as it sounds. How did we get here? We got here through academics who misapply statistics to call for the impossible.

Consider this excerpt from a Vermont doctor who claims there is “structural discrimination” in Vermont’s healthcare system:

‘Research has shown things like implicit bias, things like structural discrimination and processes actually impact people’s health,’ she said. ‘Some that is conscious, and some of that is unconscious.’

Part of the solution, she says, is equality for all patients: “We will know when we get to the point when we have reached equality when the research shows that everyone gets the same treatment, everyone has the best possible outcomes — and that’s what we are striving for.”

Here’s the problem — the research will never “show that everyone gets the same treatment, everyone has the best possible outcomes.” That utopian ideal — lovely as it sounds — has never been achieved in any society, because it is impossible. Thomas Sowell explains this in great scientific detail in his book “Discrimination and Disparities”:

The belief that disparities in incomes are indicators of disparities in the treatment of those with lower incomes is part of a more general set of assumptions that some one particular factor is the key or dominant factor behind the differences in outcomes. In the early twentieth century, the key factor behind economic, intellectual and other disparities among different groups was assumed to be genetics. That view was as dominant then as the opposite view today that disparities in outcomes imply discrimination. American colleges and universities had hundreds of courses on eugenics then, just as many academic institutions have courses — and whole departments — teaching that outcome disparities imply discrimination.

Nor was genetic determinism peculiar to the United States or confined to any particular part of the political or ideological spectrum, though American Progressives took the lead in promoting genetic determinism in the United States then, as they later took the lead in promoting the opposite presumption that disparities imply discrimination in the second half of the twentieth century. On both sides of the Atlantic, and in both eras, leading intellectual and political figures were in the forefront of those promoting the prevailing presumption of their times. (Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, p. 25.)

Yes, folks, the hubris in doctors who claim they are going to eliminate racism in the “system” echoes the painfully idiotic precedents of the eugenics and lobotomy movements in academia. In all cases, self-proclaimed liberators launched huge experiments without pausing to weigh all the evidence (or, as with CRT, after slanting and manipulating the evidence). Vermont’s progressives (who were at the forefront of both the eugenics and lobotomy movements) have already implemented this experimental ideology on Vermont children, without considering the potential for harmful negative effects.

As history shows, infatuation with science often results in a sort of religiosity, and that has been especially true with cognitive neuroscience (to which the Vermont doctor above alludes). There is then often a rush to alter legal rights in response — as with commitments (or lobotomization) of the mentally deficient, or the forced sterilization of the indigent and impoverished.

As one commentator relates:

But there is reason to pause. Cognitive neuroscience is still in its infancy, and much of what has so far emerged that might be relevant to the law consists largely of hypotheses that are far from certainties. The natural impulse of forward-thinking people to employ the wonders of neuroscience in making the law more ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’ needs to be tempered with a healthy skepticism, or some dire results are likely. Indeed, the history of using ‘brain science’ to alter the law is not a pretty picture. A few examples will illustrate the point.

The writer, a federal judge, then recounts the horrors of the eugenics and lobotomy efforts, as well as other examples of misplaced trust in so-called “science” (such as psychotherapy). He then cautions against moving too swiftly:

Clearly, then, brain science, or what has passed for it, has had a problematic impact on the law, suggesting that proposed interactions should be approached with caution. Which brings us back to cognitive neuroscience. It cannot be doubted that cognitive neuroscience has made considerable advances in recent years. But despite the considerable publicity it has received, it is still not able to produce well-tested, reliable procedures for detecting and measuring specific mental states in specific individuals. Neuroscience has something to offer the legal system and, given the rapid rate of its current development, may have even more to offer in the future. For now, however, the lessons of the past suggest that a too-quick acceptance by the legal system of the latest neuroscientific discoveries may be fraught with danger.

CRT is fraught with a multitude of such dangers. For instance, the doctor quoted above presumes that all disparities between races in Vermont are caused by racism. There has been no proof for such a dangerous allegation aside from disparities in outcome, which could have many other causes. Leaping from “subconscious bias” to deliberate systemic oppression is a dubious enterprise, especially when it churns up unjustified racial hatred.

A Scientific American commentator reviewing this data recited studies that show that data related to subconscious bias “provide little insight into who will discriminate against whom,” concluding:

For centuries the arc of the moral universe has been bending toward justice as a result of changing people’s explicit behaviors and beliefs, not on the basis of ferreting out implicit prejudicial witches through the spectral evidence of unconscious associations. Although bias and prejudice still exist, they are not remotely as bad as a mere half a century ago, much less half a millennium ago. We ought to acknowledge such progress and put our energies into figuring out what we have been doing right—and do more of it.

Even ultra-liberal Mother Jones chimed in against leaping to massive ideological conclusions based on implicit biases:

Our brains have evolved such that we have a large and highly-complex frontal cortex, which allows us to inhibit impulses, make complicated decisions and behave in socially appropriate ways. It’s the frontal cortex that helps most of us tamp down our gut reactions and, in our conscious behaviors, strive to treat members of all races equally. “The human mind is extremely adept at control and regulation,” [neuroscientist David] Amodio says, “and the fact that we have these biases should really be seen as an opportunity for us to be aware and do something about them.”

That’s why, in the end, Amodio doesn’t think that the mere existence of implicit biases provides any excuse for the display of overt or explicit racism. After all, stereotypes are ubiquitous. We all perceive them in our culture, but we do not all act upon them. In other words, we have the ability—and the responsibility—to regulate our own behavior.

The CRT being launched in Vermont schools does not teach these truths. It teaches an ideology, reflected in the BLM flags displayed at schools in violation of the First Amendment, that says that all white people are biased and that government must reallocate wealth — and brainwash children in schools — to redress this horrible state of affairs.

“Systemic racism” has never been proved, but is constantly assumed — racial disparities can have a host of other causes. CRT expressly calls for a race-based government system in an endless cycle of policies designed to impact the human brain, to achieve an impossible goal.

However well-intentioned, CRT is a “theory” being rapidly and roundly discredited, for good reason. It has no place in Vermont school curricula.

John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield, and the former pastor of the First Congregational Church of Westfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2021. All rights reserved.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/The All-Nite Images

12 thoughts on “John Klar: CRT and eugenics in Vermont

  1. While I admit I am not as well versed in CRT but I feel I can try to address it’s reason and it’s flaws. What I have learned of it I find to be disagreeable to my basic beliefs.
    I was not raised in this state, I was brought up in an a eastern seaboard big city where I went from elementary to high school in racially mixed public schools. I played with other black students as a boy in the school yard, I made black friends when I was a young man and shared living spaces with black roommates. If asked today if I am racist I would have to say I am. I am American and take pride in it. It has many problems but compared to other parts of the world I’m glad to be here. I consider the maintenance of slavery after the constitutional convention of 1787 ‘America’s birth defect’ which resulted in a bloody civil war less than a century later.

    But no; reversed racism is not a viable solution. History is history. Jefferson was not a ‘bad’ man because he was a slave owner. In fact he was one of the greatest minds of his age and is attributed internationally as one of the great minds of that great age of enlightenment. But he was a product of his time which was Virginia in the eighteenth century.

    Slavery was not started by European Americans anyway. It started and was institutionalized with the Spanish conquistador’s in the sixteenth century but I really haven’t heard much vilifying of Spain lately. I cannot dismiss with one wave of the hand all that this country accomplished because of our brutality towards other races. What we did is repulsive to our contemporary sensitivities. And from what I know Vermont from it’s admission to the nation in 1792 was a strong abolitionist state. Or is that being canceled too?

    But man by nature has through the ages a brutal side and still does today. When I see an Asian American woman get arbitrarily beat up on a New York street. When I hear and see gang violence. How is that different than what was done in the name of empire or nationality or race? Racism, expansionism, genocide, enslavement seems to be the darker side of ALL human nature. And no, it is not acceptable in a civilized society today but neither is cultural revolution or reversed discrimination. I heard of a group of PC’s who stated that the Olympics new sport admission ‘surfing’ was an ‘American symbol of imperialism’. Anyone who knows anything about the sport of surfing would know that this is garbage. I could get into the history of ‘The Sport of Kings’ (the Polynesian description for it) But I’ll stay on the subject.

    I often wonder what if it had been the other way around. What if the Africans had been the aggressive race with their written language, iron, weaponry and ships and the Caucasians the tribal hunter gatherers of Africa? Would it have been any different? Do you think?

  2. The COVID Fourth Reich and Its New Definition of “Biologically Fit”
    by Tejasinha Sivalingam / 30 July 2021
    “Nazism took a 75-year hiatus to renew itself for the current global blitzkrieg. In 2020, they initiated their attack via unrestricted warfare tactics. I refer to this bipartisan authoritarian movement as Nazism because their interest is permitting only those individuals who fit their definition of “biologically healthy” to flourish”

  3. Re: “However well-intentioned, CRT is a “theory” being rapidly and roundly discredited, for good reason. It has no place in Vermont school curricula.”

    Again, as with flying the BLM flag, there are people who want CRT in their schools. The problem occurs when alternative curricula are prohibited. And rather than fight about the curricula in a public school monopoly, break the monopoly with School Choice and the resulting education free market will resolve the issue.

    Let parents choose the school (and its curricula) they believe best meets the needs of their children, and we will quickly see economic democracy in action as parents choose between Marxism and a free market constitutional republic. And for those who choose Marxism and CRT – sometimes making a mistake and learning from it, is the best education one can receive…. as long as the alternatives aren’t ‘canceled’.

  4. Re: That “…the research will never ‘show that everyone gets the same treatment, everyone has the best possible outcomes.’ That utopian ideal — lovely as it sounds — has never been achieved in any society, because it is impossible.

    One more point of clarification, John. Treating everyone the same way doesn’t sound ‘lovely’ to me at all. It is possible, and others have tried it. But the results are draconian at best, not utopian. On the other hand, this is not to be confused with the 14th Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ tenant either.

    The paradox in all of this is that the Marxist methodology exposes its hypocrisy. Being anything but utopian, its purpose is to control the masses to benefit an elite political class. Case in point:

    When Marx (and all socialists for that matter) promote ‘equal treatment’, they mean ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need’. But what they don’t explain is how one’s ability and need are determined, or who makes that decision. Again, this Marxist tenant has always degenerated into control by an elite political class, a tyranny by the majority, breaching individual rights, liberties and the innovations free markets create.

    The paradox is what history tells us, that the best way to pursue that utopian perfection (not that it can ever be fully reached) is through individualism and free markets. This is what makes the United States so unique, what made it so successful in raising everyone’s standard of living, and why Marxist collectivists are attacking it as they are.

    • Tenets vs. Tenants

      Thanks to its confusingly similar pronunciation, tenant (“occupant, land-holder”) is sometimes erroneously used in place of tenet (“principle, doctrine”).

      nuff sed

  5. “Implicit bias” is the conditioned Vermont collective memory to forget our heinous center stage participation in eugenics that living beings still have memory of, ONLY ended in the late 1970s – that’s just 50 years ago.
    Collective amnesia in Vermont keeps avoiding this ‘preconditioning’ inherent in every structure and policy in Vermont, and that the eugenics program morphed – in the 1970s – to the Planned Parenthood program that offered sterilization and abortions (via modern methods) to Vermont women, and introduced experimental contraceptive methods only the woman was responsible for. And that caused lasting damage to reproductive systems for women – as intended.
    Many women today are sterilized due to those practices.
    Eugenics is still alive and well in this state – and we better fricking come to terms with this.
    This latest is just an unsubtle method of making sure we keep viewing each other as ‘germs’ and ‘other’ and ‘color’ instead of part of the human race, unique and beautiful each in our own way, and here for a PURPOSE – nothing random about anyone being here and now.
    We came here for THIS time.
    Killing us off is the best way to silence the rising awareness of that we are pawns in a great slave game.
    History continues to be a predictor of future, and confirmation of present.
    Vermont is just enacting the same racist eugenicist ideologies it always has, and Daddy-O will tell you what is best for you, and you better shut up and like it.
    Or else. The implicit stick is always just behind the carrot…the trick is to recognize which is which and not fall for either.
    CRT is the carrot.
    Eugenics is the stick.

  6. One point of clarification regarding “BLM flags displayed at schools in violation of the First Amendment,…”.

    It’s not the display of BLM flags that violates the 1st Amendment but rather the prohibition of displaying other flags representing alternative points of view that offends the Constitution.

  7. I don’t see professional academics in school systems dumping Standard Binet testing and even IQ tests which are based strictly in the USA on determinism. I don’t think any other civilized society does. They’ve “evened them out” to include a kid’s love for tennis, say, or other extra curricula activities if the SATs are still a bit low come college acceptance time. But SATS, GREs and every other acronym based on how well a person takes a test as “proof” of their inherently higher intelligence is the joy and pet bugbear of a professional academic’s life. Funny that in this latest example of hypocrisy in school systems, they should loudly publicly denounce something while systematically depending on its very existence.

  8. CRT, just more liberal lunacy, and if Vermont lets this happen in our schools well,
    Stand up parents, your kids need an education, not an indoctrination !!

    Wake up, people……………..

    • Agree with you 100% .. It’s happening already here in Vermont in Schools and our Colleges…

Comments are closed.