Most of y’all are probably familiar with the concept of “lawfare,” where an entity with immense resources (such as a government) bombards its victim with charges or lawsuits to the point where the victim simply runs out of resources to defend himself. A good example of this is the Charlottesville Unite the Right defendants:
A Gross Disparity in Legal Resources. In January 2018, the 10 plaintiffs in Sines v. Kessler filed a 110-page amended complaint against 25 defendants. The plaintiffs’ complaint was based on allegations that although the defendants, who had participated in the Unite the Right rallies in Charlottesville in August 2017, might have appeared to be exercising their First Amendment rights by protesting the destruction of Confederate statues amid the provocations and violent attacks of counter protestors, in reality they had organized and conspired with each other with the intent and result of violently attacking the plaintiffs. Three large New York City law firms and 38 lawyers, led by Roberta Kaplan, entered appearances for the plaintiffs. These three law firms comprised over 1300 lawyers altogether and had income in 2020 of approximately $1.9 billion. Moreover, Ms Kaplan was able to fundraise an amount probably in excess of $25 million to pay for the litigation, a staggering sum by any reckoning but especially so given that many of the plaintiffs’ law firms offered their services pro bono.
The defendants, by stark contrast, have encountered huge obstacles to obtaining adequate representation. First, given hostile media accounts, antifa threats, and the defendants’ unpopular ideology or perceived ideology, few lawyers would even consider representing them. As this case painfully illustrates, the ethical rule admonishing lawyers to provide legal assistance to unpopular defendants is honored more in the breach than the observance – unless, of course, the defendants are the right kind of unpopular defendants, which these defendants are not. Second, even if the defendants could find willing counsel, in most cases they could not pay the high legal costs the plaintiffs intended to impose, and did impose, by their scorched earth litigation. Few defendants had significant wealth and most found their ability to raise money through crowdfunding or other donation paths restricted or cut off by deplatforming, media hostility, and antifa harassment. As this case has at last, after three years, reached trial, most of the original 25 defendants have defaulted or are representing themselves.
It’s a perfect example of The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
A powerful entity needn’t have the truth on his side; he can overwhelm his opponents with a multitude of legal charges and claims, knowing that the victims cannot possibly defend themselves from all of them. It’s a flaw in our system – or a benefit, depending on your point of view.
Let’s take this concept a bit further: The case of Truth vs. Woke. In this case, Woke has unlimited resources at his disposal, including the entire educational establishment, practically all Western governments, the corporate media and all large corporations. As for Truth, he has a handful of online supporters, most of whom are too fearful of identifying themselves in real life. In the Court of Public Opinion, Truth will lose; he cannot get his message out, nor can he compete with the hundreds of thousands of “studies” Woke has at his disposal.
A Google search for “study systemic racism” yields 244,000 results, and it appears that most of those results are actual papers expounding upon the subject of systemic racism. They include titles such as:
Is obesity a manifestation of systemic racism?
Experiences of racism among urban Indigenous Australians
The four personae of racism
Perceptions of racism in healthcare among patients…
The list goes on and on. A typical example is “Systemic Racism in Canadian Occupational Therapy: A Qualitative Study with Therapists.” It’s steeped in Critical Race Theory, which it cites repeatedly. Near the beginning, we find this:
“Race” is not a biologically meaningful category, but nonetheless holds very real social consequences, due to racism. Racism is a system of social power relations rooted in history and operating at multiple levels, through myriad intersecting social, political, and economic avenues. “Racialized” groups are those marked as subordinate in the sociopolitical and historical process of categorizing groups hierarchically (Miles, 1989). In other words, “race” is constructed as real, and as mattering, through racism. There are different ways of categorizing types of racism; here we employ the framework of interpersonal, institutional, and structural racism explicated by Nazroo et al. (2019). They emphasize the interconnections across levels that construct the all-encompassing nature of racism.
Further reading of this paper reveals it to be just so much radical gibberish:
As is well-established in critical race theory, there is no “neutral” institution or social structure, which may or may not be “tainted” by aberrant racism; rather, white supremacy and systemic racism are normative, shaping the status quo of institutions and social arrangements in ways that privilege some and harm others.
Based on the flawed foundation that there are no biological differences between human populations, castles are built, and then castles upon castles. Citing each other’s work, using academic jargon and legitimizing themselves as “bonafide scholars” in the eyes of the masses, these flimsy structures are reminiscent of religious writings. Generation upon generation expounds upon how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Proponents of Critical Race Theory are well aware that none of us can possibly read even a small fraction of these “studies.” Yet they’ll throw links to these studies at us, in the hope that we’ll acquiesce; after all, how could so many scholars be wrong? How could so much ink be spilled for naught?
Even highly intelligent people, faced with this veritable sea of studies, lack the ability or inclination to challenge them. How much more so the hoi polloi, a majority of whom are mediocre or less in intelligence.
This is why it’s so important to drive home the biological reality of race. Once this is established, all the CRT castles come tumbling down.
I do believe it’s possible to explain the biological reality of race even to less intelligent people; it’s not that complicated – and it is our duty to do so.