Ian Ferrin

Retired ICU RN, Praying for revival, Anti-Communist, Spacex enthusiast, Musician.
Critical Social Justice ideology must be confronted at its academic roots.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

An essay.

Is Critical Social Justice secular theology?
(How Quasi-Religious Critical Theories Captured Institutions )

In #philosophy, it's common and normal to start with a provisional axiom and argue as if it's true for the sake of exploration—these are often called provisional assumptions, and they're meant to be challenged, revised, or dropped if they don't hold up. But in the oppression-centered critical disciplines (CRT and its many cousins like postcolonial theory, queer theory, critical feminism, etc.), the core axioms are not provisional. They are treated as settled realities or foundational truths. For example, CRT scholars like Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic describe racism as "ordinary, not aberrational"—the normal, everyday way society does business, embedded in every nook and cranny—and you basically have to accept this "settled reality" of systemic racism (and related premises) to even engage meaningfully in the field. There are plenty of other core assumptions like this, and I call them non-provisional certainties or dogmatic axioms: they're not starting points open to genuine examination; they're treated as structural givens that define the inquiry.

Non-provisional certainties show up occasionally in the humanities, but they're absolutely central to theology and religious studies. Theologians openly start from unfalsifiable core axioms—like "God exists" or "Scripture is divinely inspired"—and then build arguments and interpretations within that protected framework. Theology embraces its foundational commitments as matters of faith and revelation. It doesn’t pretend to be neutral empirical science or even neutral philosophy. But the oppression-centered critical disciplines do pretend exactly that.

Here’s my main point… CRT, systemic racism theory, decolonialism, whiteness studies, and the rest are strikingly similar in structure to theology. They operate with dogmatic axioms at their cores—almost in a neo-religious sense. When challenged, counter-evidence gets re-framed as proof of even deeper oppression rather than disconfirmation. For example, criticisms or critiques of CRT (or related theories) are often treated as manifestations of latent racism, defensiveness, or complicity in maintaining the status quo. Another example - advocating for colorblind policies or meritocracy or individual equality under the law (i.e., arguing against equity) is re-framed as a tool that perpetuates racism by ignoring structural realities. In both these examples, they literally defend themselves by saying you're racist for asking those questions.

These frameworks claim the authority of scholarship and real-world insight, but their non-provisional starting points make them function more like a quasi religion than open scientific inquiry. And they resist any serious examination. Criticisms and critiques are often 'thrown back' on the questioner, like an ad-hominem attack.

For most of their histories—from emergence in the late 1970s/80s through the 2000s and early 2010s—these oppression-centered critical disciplines (CRT and its cousins) grew largely unchallenged in academia and steadily permeated society. They expanded into education, sociology, cultural studies, DEI, corporate training, and public policy without much scrutiny or pushback on their non-provisional axioms. This unchallenged ascent let them accumulate massive institutional power: shaping curricula, hiring, funding, policies, and norms around race, equity, and justice. They've become incredibly powerful.

These quasi-religious frameworks have embedded deeply in elite institutions, government, and business—yet they're rarely recognized as such, still cloaked as neutral scholarship. They wield real-world influence far beyond what provisional, non-evidence-based critical theory should ever achieve. But unchecked growth doesn't prove validity; it just shows how 'asleep at the wheel' critics and society were. Serious critiques have emerged from voices like James Lindsay, Thomas Sowell, Jordan Peterson, Chris Rufo and the Heritage Foundation, but IMO they haven't broken through widely yet. It's time to expose this dominance further. How do we raise public awareness? IMO this could be the defining issue of our time—these disciplines have shaped the entire social justice movement into a quasi-religious force.

Have these disciplines redefined what it means to be American? I think that’s not an overstatement. For most of American history individual liberty, natural rights and personal virtue were our central moral framing. Now the framing has largely shifted to race and power (oppressed vs oppressor) and these disciplines are largely responsible for that shift. They have become incredibly influential. And, in my opinion, they currently hold the upper hand.

And so awareness of their theological structure isn't an endpoint; it's the spark that must ignite broader scrutiny and, ultimately, the restoration of genuine inquiry over ideology and dogma. DEI, CRT, systemic racism and all of them come from a literal secular theology!

Ultimately, the battle isn't merely over policy or evidence—it's over perception. We must strip away the pretense of neutral, scientific inquiry and reveal these oppression-centered critical disciplines for the quasi-religious frameworks they are: structured around non-provisional certainties, dogmatic axioms, and mechanisms of doctrinal defense that mirror theology far more than social science.

These quasi-religious Oppression-Centered Critical Theories have captured institutions and much of America. We must persistently name this reality—through clear explanations, public debates, accessible writings, and everyday conversations. We must fight to equip the average American to see beyond the academic veneer. And we must fight to expose the entrenched and continuing threat these theology-like, quasi religious ideologies pose.

-Ian Ferrin Feb. 6, 2026

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@realDougStewart He and his compatriot Michael O'Fallon actually do have a highly developed scholarly explanation. I spent over an hour yesterday trying to wrap my head around it and I'm still confused. I doubt even 1% of the folks on x using the term have wrapped their head around it either!

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

I love James Lindsay (see my posts quoting him). But his term 'Woke Right' is seriously flawed IMO.

There is a very coherent thing as 'woke ideology'. On the right there is only very diverse and tribal 'woke ideologies'. Applying 'woke right' to all of them is confusing. IMO

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

IMO Woke Right is a crummy term. 'Woke' is based, and very deeply based in Critical Social Justice, Postmodernism and and Cultural Marxism. IMO, there is no corollary to this on the right.

What the right has is a bunch of tribes and tribal leaders, mostly podcasters, with diverse conservative viewpoints. I think Lindsay has applied the overarching term 'woke right' over all of them. And I think it's confusing and unintuitive. It's nice as a handy pejorative but it's so superficial compared to 'woke's deep intellectual foundation.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@birdjitsu Correct. Nevertheless the term is part of the lexicon now. Ben Shapiro uses it all the time.

I doubt he'll ever back down because of the linguistic success the term has gotten, even if it's mostly used as a pejorative for the likes of Tucker and Candace etc.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@holybullies @batboysagogo @Prof_BDS @insidehighered Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter are firmly in the anti CSJ camp. McWhorter is a leader. Your white guy comment is just an unhelpful ad hominem.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

I had Grok make this chart about your 'ideological ingredients'. I can certainly see what you're talking about but I think there's a huge difference between the sides. IMO the left are almost in lockstep with their ingredients and the right are not.

There is so much disagreement among conservatives about each ideological ingredient. Especially Christian Nationalism. Like I said one podcasters devotees might align w/ a few ingredients and another podcasters followers w/ some others. But I think all those elements are vigorously debated on the right and they are not on the left. The left are pretty much in lockstep. Even after doing all this, I kinda see your point but IMO 'Woke Right' is still a crummy corollary on the right to 'Woke" on the left.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

The woke left's dialectic is a deep, if flawed, metaphysics of power, grievance and oppression with a vast academic foundation. The woke right's dialectic is more a chaotic mix of tribal podcaster clickbait provocations and memes. They do share a similar kind of grievance framings, but I still can't treat the term 'woke right' seriously.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@UNDP For everyone, everywhere?

75% of the UN is not on board with this! This 'inclusive' message comes from a woke group of countries that somehow are able to control this narrative in Belgium and New York.

I honestly don't understand it. Why does the UN tolerate this wokeism?

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@ConceptualJames Fantastic Language. The right is generally miserable at language compared to the left. This is superb!

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@BlinnBeth @GaslitDissident What do you think of Gad Saad's framings of Suicidal Empathy and the Parasitic Mind?

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@GucciBane6 @ConceptualJames I think you're wrong. The NYT and the Atlantic on the left don't embrace the term but they've had pieces about it. It's on their radar. And they don't mock it and partially agree w/ Lindsay.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@GucciBane6 @ConceptualJames It has caught on. I've seen numerous podcasters, politicians and even mainstream conservative media use the term. It's part of the lexicon now. Unfortunately.

I still think the term needs critique and clarification from James. He doesn't seem interested.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@BlinnBeth @anneapplebaum @NewYorker Back in those days, I think, Tucker was sill in Trump's good graces. Tucker, I think, championed Tate and could have lobbied JD? It's speculation but Tucker might be a main villain in this?

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@BlinnBeth @anneapplebaum @NewYorker Yep. Doesn't look good. Trump should have let him rot in Romania. I think a LOT of folks in the comments agree with me, even some MAGA folks. The Tates are NOT revered generally on the right, as I think, Applebaum is implying.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@JamesLNuzzo It's interesting, but IMO it needs to be compared to the overall number of births. IMO it's only significant if the rates are different.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@Arduino_jantje @nandtpolitics @JamesLNuzzo Yeah, I think you're correct that it was really important to him. It's just that I conceded that AE is old, which seemed to be the only point that he was hung up on.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@TempeTeaParty @ConceptualJames I wouldn't make that accusation about James's motivations, but I certainly agree the "woke right" term is amorphous and obscure. In fact, that's a great way to describe it.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

Yeah, it's just fundamentally confusing. Nevertheless, his term is now part of the conservative lexicon. But IMO all it really functions as is a general pejorative when someone is hating on some right wing faction or another.

I think James won't define who the woke right are, because he can't. IE, even he doesn't really know?

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

Certainly. Do you disagree? My point was that there is a newer form of autoethnography. IE Critical Autoethnography which was formalized in 2014. He is absolutely correct that AE is an old tool in philosophy and I conceded that.

He just wouldn't or couldn't recognize the two forms of AE. I think that was a pretty marginal challenge.

I think he's probably just a stubborn old jerk. I was really angry that he blocked me. It was uncalled for.

[Ian Ferrin @IanFerrin]

@TempeTeaParty @ConceptualJames I'd ask you the same thing I'm trying to get an answer from James about: Who are the woke right?

IMO, it's really unspecific. It works great as a general pejorative, say if you're mad at Tucker or Candace. But it's really unclear who is WR and more specifically, who is not?