It may interest you to know that CRT is derived from Marxism, or rather, neo-Marxism, which does away with the "Orthodox Marxist" (I didn't make that term up, they did) class struggle in favour of racial, gender, and queer (again, their term, not mine) struggles. My alter-ego went over that in a brief introduction to Marxism, but TL;DR - the reason that it looks so different from any Marxist regime is because it comes out of the Fourth International, founded by Leon Trotsky during his exile in Mexico. In the article that I'm currently working on, I go further down the rabbit hole, because Trotskiism didn't start to truly permeate academia until after the Civil Rights Act, beginning with a teaching manual written by Patricia Bidol titled Developing New Perspectives on Race in 1972. The argument going on at that time went something like this:
Normal people after the Civil Rights Act: black people now have equal protection under the law. Any problems they face are the fault of individual action, not the system.
Race grifters: our society is built on racism, and therefore systemic racism lives on; the Civil Rights Act accomplished nothing because it doesn’t legislate against racist thoughts.
Normal people: we’re not racist, we supported the Civil Rights movement, but there’s only so much we can do about the racists who still exist. We’re not activists, just regular people trying to live and let live.
Race grifters: all white people are racist. Racism isn’t an ideology, but a system of privileges.
Normal people: affirmative action is a form of racism, because it treats people on the basis of skin colour!
Race grifters: all racism is based on structural power, therefore only white people can be racist.
Source:
At some point, I will have to draw connections to Antonio Gramsci, who essentially was to Giovanni Gentile what Trotsky was to Stalin, because the permeation of Marxism (and other forms of totalitarian philosophy derived from socialist economic theory) piggy-backing off of meaningful social reforms brought about by Classical Liberalism (hence the conservative tendency to call anything that offends their sensibilities the "liberal agenda") is one part active measures, two parts ivory tower navel-gazing.
The thing is, I actually want this material to be available, this way people can read it for themselves and (hopefully) see it for the nonsense that it is. "Teach the controversy," and show that one argument really doesn't hold a candle to the other. It is profoundly telling that the peddlers of bad ideas feel a need to hide what they are doing. As long as the ALA actually abides by their freedom to read statements, great!
OK, I finally watched that video and most of Part 2. The argument and evidence is pretty persuasive. P+P=R analysis does look a lot like systemically begging the question to conclude with the implicit premise that white people are racist by default. It's secular original sin as "privilege."
I knew critical race theory is derived from the critical class theory developed by commies. Like intersectuonalism, I am willing to consider the possibility it might be a useful analytical tool under certain circumstances. They are definitely not the be-all and end-all their adherents claim. These activists do not want to recognize the root injustice of a political class, and instead want to use that unjust power to impose their ideas.
Since most public libraries are intertwined with politics through taxpayer funding, there is a real risk to such activist influence, but the responses I have seen are misguided and counterproductive.
And it looks like the real censorship of Bitchute through the internet filter is getting swept under the rug in the mean time.