In the justly-forgotton Hulk Hogan movie, Suburban Commando, there’s a scene where Hogan knocks over a row of bikers’ rides. Hogan challenges the outraged bikers to pound his face. “What, are you nuts?” one thug responds. “This is the 90s: we’re gonna sue you.”
But the presumable high-point of the direct-to-VHS stinker isn’t quite the joke it might seem. In fact, it was in the 80s that the thugs of the left learned that the courts were the best way to pound their enemies’ faces into the dirt.
In the late 60s and the 70s, as documented in Bryan Burroughs’ Days of Rage, leftist radicals robbed banks and set off thousands of bombs to finance their operations and try to bludgeon America into submission. Then they wised up: in the 80s, the same radical lawyers who’d spent the last ten years bailing out leftist terrorists helped them launch a never-ending cavalcade of punishing lawsuits. Leftist politicians greased the skids by making sure that activists could launch suits at almost no cost to themselves, while tying up authorities and corporations in decades of lawfare.
Naturally, their victims concluded that it was just easier to give in and pay them money to go away. The practise became such a money-spinner for the race-hustling left especially that economists dubbed it, “how to legally rob a bank”.
The theocons tried similar tricks in the later 80s, such as the “obscenity” lawsuit against rock band The Dead Kennedys. The DKs won, but the battle broke their bank and their will. In any case, the strategic value of the DKs (let alone the attack on free speech that the case represented) was a severe misstep from the right’s religious fringe. Mainstream conservatives, besides, disdained to engage in such déclassé stuff.
Hopefully, perhaps, the right have finally learned to both pick their targets better and to get their hands legally dirty.
Critical race theory is about to face a major real-world test: a spate of lawsuits alleging that it encourages discrimination and other illegal policies targeting whites, males and Christians. But unlike Trump’s executive order, which ran into First Amendment problems by prohibiting controversial speech, the lawsuits name specific policies and practices that allegedly discriminate, harass, blame and humiliate people based on their race.
The common thread of these legal challenges is the inescapable logic that making accommodations for critical race theory will erode the nation’s anti-discrimination law as it has developed since the 1960s. This would mean replacing the colorblind ideal of treating all people equally, which has been widely viewed as the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement, with a contrary strategy: implementing race-based policies.
Rather than trying to take down naughty rock groups for including rude artwork in their albums, conservatives are now on solid legal and moral grounds: attacking policies which threaten to plunge America into a long-abandoned paradigm of racial separatism – and expose the damaging lies of the left.
“Critical race theory is a Trojan horse of sorts,” said David Pivtorak, a Los Angeles lawyer representing two white men who are suing two California state environment agencies.
“It disguises itself as the gold standard of fairness and justice but, in fact, relies on vilification and the idea of permanent oppressor and oppressed races. Its goal is not ensuring that all people play by the same rules, regardless of race, but equity, which is a euphemism for race-based outcomes.”
About a dozen lawsuits and administrative complaints have been filed since 2018, with another wave planned this summer by conservative public interest law firms and private attorneys. Their goal is to draw attention to some of the more pronounced practices and win court judgments to slow down the spread of CRT in K-12 schools, government agencies other organizations.
At the heart of the lawsuits is CRT’s blatant racism, which resolutely preaches prejudice against Americans based solely on their skin colour.
Of course, the race-hustling left reflexively resort to race as the explanation for everything.
Proponents of critical race theory say the lawsuits are a form of white denialism that confirms the pervasiveness of the problem that CRT exposes[…]
CRT rejects the foundational premises of classical liberalism – such as legal neutrality and individual rights – and from that perspective, colorblindness is not understood as a strategy to overcome racism but as a method to perpetuate it.
It’s this sort of circular logic that demolishes the very claim of CRT to be a “theory”. Any idea that cannot be proved wrong – if disproving CRT in fact proves it right – cannot claim to be a theory in the academic sense.
“The ideology is so patently stupid and racist to the common person that the only way you can implement it or teach it is with an element of coercion, otherwise it would just be laughed at,” said Jonathan O’Brien, the lawyer representing the student and mother who filed the Nevada lawsuit. “That’s why the training sessions are like pressure cookers.
Zero Hedge
But, like the lunatic ideas of Trofim Lysenko, just because it isn’t a genuine theory doesn’t diminish its potential harm once it escapes from the sewers of academia. Lysenko’s nutcase ideology was applied in Soviet and Chinese agriculture: and tens of millions of people starved to death.
It remains to be seen how deadly CRT pans out to be, even though its implementation via Black Lives Matter has already led to an astonishing spike in murders in the US.
The tragic irony, though, is that the victims of BLM’s “racial reckoning” are overwhelmingly black – murdered at the hands of other blacks emboldened by the CRT-driven abandonment of policing.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD