Critical theory precludes any depth to a thing behind its cover: You can for example, study white supremacy, blood and soil or other xenophobic philosophies. You can then take what you have learned and create a reliable set of biases, which must be true because the definitions are firmly established after all that study. The biases are then subject to an element of human nature, our desire to attribute motive, who does not want to know “why?” someone did something. The fallacy of attributing motives based on expectations from biases is just a shovel being used to dig the intellectual hole. The cement used to seal that hole with the unfortunate digger still inside would be the model of using understandings from biases to anticipate a demographic's ideological response. In short critical theory attempts lazily to read people’s hearts and minds. The lazy part is that it has no lever to permit the premise that individuals break the rule of demographics. Another way to say this