ANN 
“I firmly believe in the ethic of Honesty. Thus I do not grant quarter to the necessity of Dishonesty that permeates all forms of race Radicalism.”
By Trevor Brown
Last year, I reported on a system update Blue-Anon cultists received regarding Critical Race theory. In that report I went over a Journalist Resource article which insinuated, “as critics call critical race theory “un-American” and a divisive political movement, it appears people on all sides of the issue have different understandings of what it actually is. The technical term entered public discourse without a clear definition.” To give you an idea of just how educated on the subject, this article is. The first paragraph says Critical Race theory is, “a decades-old legal framework for examining how race and racism shaped U.S. history and how laws and systems in place today perpetuate racism.” Not exactly sure how appealing to the tradition of racist Dogma proves the merits of race Radicalism, but I digress. I have since educated myself on this further. When I read their Necronomicon I educated myself on this pathology quite extensively. The following is an Open Treatise in which I shall Unharmonize the race Radicalism of Critical Race Theory and put forward a pro-integration framework that can accurately represent Critics of race Radicalism.
Jane Elliot:
My first experience with (what I now know to be) Critical Race Theory (CRT), was in the 11th grade. When my Spanish Teacher Mr. Cortez (Not his actual name) gave grand 15 minute speeches before every class. I remember them quite well, as they all had the same theme. That Mr. Cortez (someone who is poly-lingual, has multiple degrees, all of his daughters in prestigious Universities, and about to retire with a cushy school board position) was oppressed because he was a person of Color (more on this later). I would constantly remind him in my own way that he was being an idiot. In his response, I would learn about my “White privilege” and how I am a participant in “systemic racism” because I was “being white”. This was 2018 and CRT was not exactly in the limelight culturally or politically as it is today. Naturally, I argued for my own individual sovereignty, and I believe I was quite successful. However, this was the seed that eventually grew into my further understanding of the racial Pathology known as CRT.
Struggle Session Advocacy.
In another class on December 2019, yet very mysteriously in the same room as that Spanish class. I came across yet another instance of race Radicalism. This 80s documentary features Jane Elliot. Who is an Actor by profession and an activist by Occupation. She is also a former schoolteacher and birthed the failed abortion known as the Blue-eyes Brown-eyes experiment. When one considers she is now in the top 1% of income earners, it would seem her acting and her experimentation has been quite successful.
My robust take-down of this experimentation. Will begin not with the start of this race Radical propaganda film. Which at first glance may sound strange. However, the ending of the film is quite illuminating. In the final few minutes of this Documentary, anti-racist activist (More on that later.) Jane Elliot has these words to say about her experimentation, “I think that necessity for this exercise is a crime. No, I do not want this to be used more widely. I want to see the necessity for this exercise wiped out. I think if educators were determined enough, it could be very instrumental in eliminating the necessity for this exercise. I would like to see this exercise done with all teachers and all administrators. But, certainly not by people who are not doing it for the right reasons and in the right way. I think you could damage a child with this exercise very very easily.” This quote gives a level of insight to her actions throughout this documentary that is truly unrivaled. For this is the point where the excellent propaganda work from the director can no longer hide her intent.
The propaganda film begins lamenting the assassination of integrationist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the audio side. Sirens and buildings blaze, and an equally eerie but deep drum fill can be heard not 5 seconds after the calming and soothing voice says his first sentence. Soldiers are marching, buildings are burning, and people are running. The obvious inference the viewer is supposed to feel is fear. Not but 20 seconds of this passes, and we transition over to the sound of happy children. Who seem to be leaving school in the snow. The viewer is then introduced to Jane Elliot. Who says, “The shooting of Dr. Martin Luther King could not just be talked about and explained. There was no way to Third graders. I knew that it was time for me to deal with this in a concrete way. We had talked about racism since the first day of school.” This is another fascinating insight into the character of Jane Elliot. For what does a teacher do than explain things that are difficult for children to understand. Moreover, what is difficult for third-graders to understand about this. Martin Luther King wanted the world to be one way, and his assassin wanted the world to be a different way. The choice in tactics from the assassin contrasted with Dr. King being the evidence for Martin Luther King’s Character. I find it difficult for a teacher of all people to not understand this. Nevertheless, the documentary then cuts to a compilation of Elliot’s experimentation. “I watched wonderful and thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders.” Elliot said. Then in a cutaway to a high-school reunion, Elliot is reunited with those same students. They exchange pleasantries and watch the brave new experiment in discrimination that was conducted on them. They are watching the previous propaganda film of which they were all a part of titled, “The eye of the Storm”.
Despite the vein veneer of Pseudo-Benevolence that is all to common with those who impose their ethical agendas onto others. Jane Elliot is clearly taking the center stage. Elliot informs the children of a game that she wishes for the children to play. “I don’t think you know what it is like to be treated differently because of the color of your skin. I don’t think you know what it could be like unless you went through it” She sneers. Prideful in her accomplishment of outwitting a group of third-graders she is in charge of. Without hesitation, she tells the students of a “game” where her students judge each other based on the color of their eyes. “I have blue eyes. So I think the blue-eyed people should be on top the first day. I mean that the Blue-eyed people are the better people. Blue-eyed people are smarter than brown eyed people” She says to her little lab rats. A student who is a courageous as he is correct appeals to the innate individuality of man. “Wait that can’t be right, he has blue eyes, and he is stupid.” The student can be heard saying in reference to another student. Elliot, once again sneering and dismissing the children she is supposed to be educating and not indoctrinating. She says, “Does your dad have brown eyes?” the child nodded, implying yes. “One day you told us when you walked into class that he kicked you, do you think a blue-eyed father would kick a blue-eyed son? My dad has blue eyes, and he never kicked me”. The child she is mentally abusing is then showing obvious signs of emotional distress. Another child can be seen shaking his head in disapproval. It is at this point Jane Elliot could stop. After-all, Elliot is only doing this in response as these children clearly disagree with everything she has been saying. They clearly have an individualist and integrationist mindset. However, that is not what she wants her lab rats to learn.
She graciously gives the blue-eyed children an extra 5 minutes of recess, deprives the brown-eyed children the drinking fountain, segregates the blue-eyed kids from the brown-eyed kids on the playground and forces the brown eyed children to wear colors. A Teachers pet can be heard saying, “Why don’t you keep the yard stick at your desk in case the Brown eyed people from getting out of line”. In leading a sermon, she asks the children she is in charge of “who gets to go to lunch first”. “The blue-eyed” the children say in unison with low enthusiasm. “No Brown-eyed people may go for seconds, only blue-eyed people can go for seconds” she says with a grin. When a little girl asked “why” a little boy can be heard saying “because brown-eyed people aren’t smart”. The children for the entire day at this point have been playing their teacher’s game. In the name of Elliot’s game, the children predictably bully, intimidate, harass, and ostracize one another. “It seems that everything bad that’s happening is happening to us” One child says as another child is seen wearing her collar as an arm band. Another child says, “it seems Ms. Elliot is taking away are best friends from us”. “Russel called me names and I hit him” says one brown-eyed little boy in a dispute between him, the teacher, and presumably Russel. Once again with a sneer (this time visually) Elliot glazes around the room. As the children their teacher victimized explain their troubles that their teacher created. “What is wrong with being called brown-eyes?” she says. A student explained,” it means we are stupider than they are”. Another student, clearly smarter than the teacher gives her credit for, (I know the feeling) says, “It’s like calling black people N*****s”. Once again, Jane Elliot could stop here. In-fact, this is an even better opportunity to stop than she was offered previously. However, I must reiterate that her goal is not to teach children that racism is bad. Her goal is to make these children understand something and (Based on everything that has transpired so far.) will go to any lengths to do it. “I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful, children. Turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating, little third-graders in a space of 15 minutes.” She says in reference to her experimentation as the video and audio fades into black.
After the low budget transition effect is over, we cut to the classroom the following day. “Yesterday I told you brown-eyed people aren’t as good as blue-eyed people. That was not true. I lied to you yesterday.” she says as one third grade boy can be heard saying “Oh boy here we go again”. “The truth is that it is actually brown-eyed are better than blue-eyed people.” she says, presumably with the physical manifestation of Pseudo-benevolence itself on her tongue. Jane Elliot then proceeds to do the same experimentation, but this time in reverse. She goes through the motions and predictably the same thing happens. Once again the children are proselytized to bully, intimidate, harass, and ostracize one another.
She laments, “when the brown-eyed children were in the low class the first day, and it took them five and a half minutes to get through the card pack. The second day (in reference to being on top of the arbitrary caste system she created.) it took them two and a half minutes. The only thing that had changed was the fact that now they were superior people” Jane Elliot says with pride. As if putting children through warrantless emotional distress was somehow an unknown impact on the outcome of a child’s performance. “We had collars on” one child can be heard saying in reference to when Elliot asked the kids, “why couldn’t you do this fast yesterday?”.
Before the propaganda film once again fades into black. Jane Elliot then laments about how she didn’t like this “horrid day”. When the fading stops, we cut to Wednesday afternoon, and she is giving another sermon to her little lab rats. In reference to how children felt yesterday, children can be heard saying “bad” and that the collars “felt like a leash”. Elliot then says, “should the color of some other person’s eye have anything to do with how they are treated?”. As if the children in this class didn’t express this exact sentiment on camera multiple times.
After the propaganda film.
Throughout this struggle session advocacy film, I was taking shorthand of the events that transpired. When the teacher Mr. Harbinger (not his actual name) asked the class about their thoughts. For about 5 seconds their was absolute silence nobody dared drop a pencil. I looked at my shorthand and decided that I must speak. “This teacher abused her children”, I exclaimed. It was only then did other students begin to speak without hesitation. Most of whom I knew of in passing. For they were normal teenage students like myself at the time. That was my view of them until I heard their thoughts about the struggle sessions.
The other students informed me all about my Caucacity (caucasian audacity), and white male privilege. When I asserted that, “children do not do this and if these children were left to their own devices then they would not doing this. The teacher is using Nazi indoctrination tactics and is abusing these children”. The glare of daggers in their eyes was enough for me to know that I was no longer talking to my fellow peers. I was talking to ideological agents and if they view me as evil for not accepting their Premises. Then I need to figure out what this ideology is and put a stop to it before it indoctrinates anyone else.
