Unlimited Power, Limited People
In the end, there is never good but always force, coercion and cruelty.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.
The American left has enjoyed ultimate power in government, academia, institutions, cultural movements, for decades. Recently, “woke” corporations joined that murderer’s row when they saw benefit to be gained by becoming part of the fascistic “public/private partnerships” through which they can be rewarded for being the vehicles used by government to do the things the Constitution forbids government to do.
And as the left proves every day, they are limited people - severely limited, in fact.
It all has come through the application of coercive force and punishment.
Rarely (if ever) do social movements based on punishment for not bending the knee make anything better. It always seems that when something is good for people, the carrot is accepted making the stick unnecessary.
Is there any situation where wokeness made life better?
Are there any examples of places and times where and when wokeness advanced our culture?
I can’t recall a single instance when either of these things happened.
Like most woke things, Critical Race Theory begin with the assumption of guilt, meaning that the target of the action is automatically on the defensive and must prove their innocence. Most of us would logically assume that if we have never committed an offense or a crime, we are innocent, but in the case of CRT, just not being or not doing that of which you are accused is no defense - because it is fundamental to the theory that the only reason you aren’t doing or haven’t done the thing is that you just haven’t yet had the opportunity. You will do it at some point because you are genetically predisposed to do it. You can’t resist. It will happen, and it is up to some CRT Pre-Crime Agency to stop you before you do.
If that seems irrational to you, don’t worry.
It is irrational.
But it has also become doctrine for the left.
I just read about the most remarkable decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, unanimously of course.
And by remarkable, I mean remarkably absurd and remarkably bad.
Hans Bader, lawyer and author, writes about it at Liberty Unyielding:
“…in a truly bizarre ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that it is presumptively racist to characterize litigants as “combative” or “confrontational,” if the litigants happen to be black. Based on this strange conclusion, it ruled that a $9,000 verdict for a black plaintiff was likely inadequate, and had to be overturned at the plaintiff’s request, unless the white woman who was sued could somehow prove the judgment would not have been larger absent its counsel calling the black plaintiff combative. It also ruled by a 7-to-2 vote that it was presumptively racist to point out that three witnesses all used the exact same phrase, as if they were coached, suggesting collusion, because the witnesses happened to be black.
The case involved a black woman asking for a new trial because of opposing counsel’s successful attack on her credibility and calling her “combative” in cross-examination. The black woman sued for $3.5 million after a white motorist had a rear-end collision with her. Video showed the black motorist was faking the extent of her injuries. After defense counsel called into question her credibility, based on the video, the jury awarded the black woman only $9200.”
This is a case in point of CRT at work in our legal system. Lawyer Ted Frank calls it an example of “a state Supreme Court applying critical race theory for the purpose of discriminating against whites in civil litigation” and how “pseudoscientific nonsense is infecting our institutions.”
Bader also notes “the ruling also contains all sorts of bizarre unnecessary claims unrelated to its holding, like suggesting that welfare fraud doesn’t exist (it routinely occurs) and that its existence is just a racist trope invented by Republicans.”
It is said that justice delayed is justice denied, if that is true, then the application of CRT is justice destroyed. Notice how the onus was placed on “the white woman who was sued could somehow prove the judgment would not have been larger absent its counsel calling the black plaintiff combative.”
What new fresh Hell is this?
The respondent has the burden to prove that she lost but she should have lost more because she was white?
It is just a way to find a way to convict in the face of clear evidence and reason to the contrary.
It is Kafka’s “The Trial” in real life.