‘Toxic Whiteness’
And so modern-day cultural-Marxist academics are pushing concepts such as whiteness studies, the problem of whiteness, white privilege, privilege preserving epistemic pushback, white denial, implicit bias, unconscious bias etc. The aim, as one such scholar proudly writes, is “disrupting racism by problematizing whiteness” (p. 124), or more simply put, to “problematize” hundreds of millions of people (p. 124). As Murray points out, to “problematize” a people group simply and exclusively due to their racial characteristics is a textbook definition of racism. However, as we see elsewhere in Critical Theory, in the victimhood hierarchy, racism only flows downwards, from the alleged hegemonic power of cis-gender heterosexual and heteronormative white males, the ultimate oppressors in modern society.
This thinking has evolved to the place where Black activists are claiming that for whites to stand for the concept of diversity of thought is in and of itself a manifestation of white supremacy. Indeed, going further, SJWS are now arguing that truth itself is an artificial construct of the Euro-West, a myth and tool of white supremacy. As Murray succinctly asks, if “the “Truth” is a white thing, then what is everyone else meant to live in and to strive towards?” As events at Evergreen and other US college campuses have demonstrated, if dialogue, discussion, debate, reason, reflection, research and seeking the truth are tools of white supremacy, and to be rejected, what is left? Violence. Mob-rule. A bleak prognosis.
Murray then moves to so-called “cultural appropriation.” He identifies a central contradiction: one the one hand, we are taught that diversity is our strength, that all cultures have unique insights and strengths and contributions that are to be celebrated. Theoretically, we are to learn from each other with humility and openness. On the other, those cultural differences can only be crossed under certain circumstances. So, a white woman selling burritos on a college campus is now an act of cultural appropriation and overt racism. For a person of non-Chinese descent to wear an oriental-style dress to a prom is treated likewise, an act of cultural and ethnic oppression. In popular culture, we see this cultural conflict played out with public handwringing and virtue signaling / shaming on social media over what costumes are appropriate at Halloween, whether we can celebrate Thanksgiving, or even Christmas itself. Other race-related issues are then discussed, including questions of the measurement of IQ, the manipulating of entrance gateways into ivy-league universities to boost “diversity” and the concept that to be Black means one must vote Democrat. Blackness is thus becoming a political identity over and above a biological reality, e.g. the curious case of Rachel Dolezal, and the demonization of black celebrities such as Kanye West and Candace Owens for inviting African-Americans to leave the so-called “Democratic plantation” and think for themselves.
Ultimately (and tragically), we are reversing the vision of Dr King. No longer should someone be judged on the content of his or her character rather than in an aggregate group according to the color of their skin. To be evaluated and judged and appreciated in any society by one’s character rather than by one’s race is now viewed as dangerous. What matters now is the color of one’s skin, which for SJWs determines one political worldview, voting patterns, experience of life, and life pathway. Thus, in the SJW worldview, for an African-American to vote for President Donald J Trump in 2020 will be viewed as an act of betrayal to the color of his / her skin.
Forgiveness No Longer Possible
Murray now turns to his final interlude – a discussion of forgiveness. With the arrival of social media, we are moving beyond the possibility for public or private forgiveness. “Context collapse” is the term used for when a private conversation leaks into the public sphere, without the public having any idea of the original context. The opportunities for misunderstanding, and public outrage, shaming and hatred abound. On the internet, many are now seemingly addicted to the pleasure of public shaming, tearing someone apart professionally and personally, and thus gaining a sense of self-righteousness that comes from joining virtuously in the punishment of an alleged transgressor.
And how is forgiveness possible in an era when the internet stores every story forever? Nothing can be erased. Your past is forever with you. The past is hostage to any internet-archaeologist with a vendetta. Cancel culture is eliminating people’s professional and personal viability due to alleged sins from previous tweets or social media postings. As the list of alleged sins shifts by the day, it is impossible to know whether one is viewed as moral and socially acceptable today will lead to you becoming a social pariah in 10 years’ time. Your sins as a teenager will be held forever against you for the rest of your life. Unsurprisingly, repeated studies show a staggering increase in mental health problems, particularly on college campuses, which are witnessing an epidemic of anxiety, depression and mental illness among young people.
Thus, with the rise of social media, we live in an era where forgiveness is not possible. We still live with concepts of guilt, often a heritage from the fumes of our Judeo-Christian heritage in the West, but we have no possibility of redemption or forgiveness. How do we respond? Rather than engaging in society, sharing ideas, debating concepts, and engaging in the give and take of healthy discourse, we are retreating into sullen and fearful silence, afraid to speak up. This is how the new totalitarianism works. People are jumping onto the bandwagon of political correctness and embracing its ever-changing dogmas because no questions are allowed and no questions are to be asked. Perhaps the fastest moving dogma is that of transgenderism, to which we now turn.
This is Murray’s last major chapter. He describes the history of the rise of Transgender ideology, focusing initially on the biological reality of the fraction of the population born with inter-sex disorders, i.e. with both male and female genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia. Famous cases such as Robert Cowell and Bruce Jenner are discussed and analyzed, together with their social impact, and a detailed discussion of autogynephilia. The Transgender issue really focuses our minds on whether this is a hardware or a software question. A biological male is hardwired to be a man. However, what if he believes he is a woman. That would be a software question – one of social role, gender constructs, reiterated social activities and expectations.
Murray explores the issue of Transgenderism primarily from the perspective of a gay man. As he makes clear, despite the protestations of love and unity and inclusiveness at Pride and other such events, there is actually no love lost or shared philosophy between the G and the T components of the LGBTQ community. Rather, there are profound philosophical differences and utter confusion. For instance, if a biological woman identifies as a man, is a biological man who is attracted to other men (i.e. is a homosexual) to be considered bigoted and transphobic for refusing the possibility of a date with said trans-man? Likewise, if a biological female is attracted to other women (as understood throughout history, i.e. an adult biological female), i.e. is a lesbian, should she be compelled to be open to the possibility of dating a trans-woman, i.e. a biological male with male genitalia but who identifies as a woman? Confusion and acrimony are the result of such philosophical chaos. As Murray points out, there is no metric for measuring truth or respective “privilege” and one’s place in the victimhood hierarchy. Is the daughter of President Obama, raised with incredible earthly advantages, a victim of the unemployed son of a white logger in a dying town in northern Maine? How do we evaluate privilege between a handsome or an ugly person, a fit person or a morbidly obese person? What if the ugly person is a prince, and the handsome person is a pauper? What happens if Prince Charles of the House of Windsor suddenly announces that he is a transgender person of color? Does that mean he is now a victim of the oppression caused by allegedly homophobic cis-gender heterosexual African-American preachers?
In the crossfire between L, G and T-groups, feminists have suffered immensely. Some of the most famous feminist writers of the 20th Century such as Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer have been “cancelled” due to their insistence on speaking up for biological women as opposed to trans-women. As Murray succinctly puts this, “just as Peter Thiel was no longer gay, and Kanye West no longer black, so Germaine Greer was no longer a feminist” (p. 215). Ideological purity demands the public cancellation and demonization of any who stray off the ideological reservation.
In my personal opinion, in what Murray is describing, we are now witnessing a replay of the madness of the Terror of the French Revolution and of Mao Zedong’s Chinese Cultural Revolution. Both of these tragic periods in history involved the intentional elimination of the Christian presence from society, massive bloodshed, social disruption on a scale previously unseen, untold suffering, and the demand for political correctness to today’s ideology. America should take note!
At the end of the day, Murray argues that in the rush to adopt the Transgender ideology, we are at risk of causing untold damage to countless children, who are confused and in the midst of childhood suddenly announce they are of another gender. They are then put on steroid and surgical pathways that irreparably change their physical and psychological being – all without any real understanding of what is happening.
On a personal note, a sermon I preached on the question of the Transgender ideology and experience is available HERE. This sermon includes a brief history of the Transgender ideology and how we may respond with Christian love and grace to those caught up in this experience and ideology.
Summary
Murray now turns to his conclusions. Although raised an Anglican, he now describes himself as a “cultural Christian” or as a “Christian Atheist” and is openly gay. Hence, his conclusions are not those that come from a biblical worldview. He argues that SJWs argue via intersectionality and identity politics that society is inherently and irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynist etc. The West is fundamentally flawed. Essentially, we need to cancel the USA! Yet, the various demands of the competing intersectional groups are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. They represent philosophical confusion, logical impossibilities and socio-cultural chaos. The battle lines are always changing. Today’s ideology is tomorrow’s hate speech. As Truth is no longer a possible concept, everything is relativized and atomized. In short, society comes to the brink of collapse or to enforce total equality of outcome for every micro-group we end up with a totalitarian Marxist state.
What is the solution to this? Murray concludes with a call for the return of free speech (and free thinking), identifying and sharing common values, and for sanity to be restored in an era of internet and ideologically driven mass hysteria.
It is to be noted that SJWs and cultural Marxists and those invested in the exploding cottage industry of diversity and inclusion have condemned Murray for being a right wing conspiracy theorist and provocateur. Yes, Murray’s writing is provocative, but his history-telling is accurate, his cultural analysis is incisive, and his book is well worth reading, if only for Adventists to better understand the times in which we live and to better respond to the cultural-Marxism and functional atheism being promoted in our NAD colleges via the diversity and inclusion delusionaries on our NAD campuses.
Born into a pastoral family, Elder Vine grew up with his twin brother and two sisters in homes across the UK. After graduating with a business management degree (1995), he served in the UK public healthcare system before God led him to ADRA (1996). Initially serving in Azerbaijan, Elder Vine served with ADRA through 2002 in a variety of roles worldwide. Following seminary training at Newbold College (2002-2004), he and Luda began their pastoral ministry in London, UK. After a stint in the Middle East Union, they served in pastoral ministry in Minnesota for four years before Elder Vine answered the call to serve as President of Adventist Frontier Missions.
Conrad and Luda were married in December 1999 and regard their marriage as a personal blessing from a loving Heavenly Father. They have two wonderful children, David and Christina.