Likely you've never heard of Noel Ignatiev, yet he's been influential in much of what is going on in culture and politics today.  A left-wing Jewish American author and historian, Ignatiev has been one of the main voices in helping shape and direct what is commonly called "Whiteness Studies," a subset of Critical Race Theory, which is itself a subset of Critical Theory (basically Marxism by another name).

Normally, when one sees the word "studies" attached to anything, it tends to make anyone not fully enamored of Progressive thought cringe, if not contemplate (metaphorically, at least) getting out the pitchforks and torches.  It means something steeped in a Marxist-tinged ideological understanding of the world, which casts victims and perpetrators within a power-play framework that suits its ultimate vision of a Heaven on Earth once the perpetrators are vanquished from the scene.

As one might guess, in this particular iteration of "studies," it is the so-called "white" person who has been cast as the villain.  As Ignatiev has said, "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.  Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue in U.S. society, whether domestic or foreign."

Defenders of Ignatiev's views argue that he was simply being metaphorical.  "Whiteness" here is simply a social construct, not a reference to race or ethnicity.  This becomes harder to defend as one reads more quotes from Ignatiev and realizes that this isn't just a social construct he has difficulty with; it's actual flesh-and-blood human beings he sees as intrinsically evil and worthy of eradication.  When reading the following quotes, are you left with the conclusion he is merely speaking of a metaphorical, socially constructed system that he hopes to bring down, or is it something more than that?

"If you are a white male, you don't deserve to live.  You are a cancer, you're a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world!"

"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists[.] ... Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed — not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."

"Whiteness is not a culture[.] ... Whiteness has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with social position[.] ... Without the privileges attached to it, the white race would not exist, and the white skin would have no more social significance than big feet."

"Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."

Replace the word "whiteness" with "blackness" — or, considering his background, "Jewishness" — would you write this off as nothing more than an academic speaking of a social construct's need to be re-evaluated and deconstructed?  I highly doubt it.  I am sure Ignatiev would cry foul at such hateful anti-Semitism if you did that.  Yet he seems content to do it for "whites."  Why is that, and why is that now deemed acceptable in society?  Does he not consider himself white, too?

What Ignatiev began teaching a short few decades ago has filtered down into the young minds of those coming out of our universities and filling many parts of our culture.  It has seeped into the various avenues and institutions that will become intrinsic to the next generation and the decision-making of the government.  All you are hearing today about the inherent evil of "whiteness" stems from people like Ignatiev, who was one of the most prominent behind it.

We should not idly accept this.  We should call out the Ignatievs of the world, shine a light on their dark corners, and ferret them out so they do not get away with their heinous belief systems.  Such people are not merely ivory-tower academics; they are aggressively calling to destroy a group of people, a civilization.  Why are we allowing them and their acolytes a pass?