April 18, 2023

On the tsunami of wokeism, our government, private corporations, academic institutions, and other organizations are doling out significant rewards and preferences to individuals and groups of individuals based on color, race, gender, and other select characteristics. For ease of reference, I have previously assigned the shorthand term of “Blue” to any candidate determined by the woke calculus of victim variables to be deserving of a given privilege. Now, despite the growing evidence that affirmative action itself has “backfired,” and contrary to Martin Luther King’s admonition that people be judged on the basis of character versus skin color, we are moving ever more significantly in the wrong direction.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

Scholarships, jobs, loans, medical care, recognition awards, airtime and much more are now being awarded to Blue candidates. This could be a biological male athlete who now identifies and competes as a female, a student with below average GPA and test scores who qualifies for a scholarship by virtue of being “first generation,” a farmer receiving a subsidy or loan on the basis of being a “person of color,” one of the California residents deemed deserving of some $640b for sins of generations past; a patient being prioritized to receive healthcare on the basis of belonging to a certain racial group, a candidate given special consideration by the president for the open position of Supreme Court Justice on the basis of being black and female, and a growing number of other examples. As Blue benefits grow in size and frequency, it stands to reason that the definitions and qualifications for being Blue will become more significant and receive greater scrutiny.

One of the pesky issues involved in answering the question of “Who is Blue?” pertains to who gets to write the rules. Afterall, Blueness is not a scientific or legal definition. In fact, it often flies in the face of both science and the law. Scientifically speaking, it is not possible to “switch one’s gender.” And Title VII and other discrimination laws prohibit most rewards provided on the basis of race. 

Right now, the Left and its media sycophants are writing the rules and bullying everyone else into going along with them. For example, one rule is that it is acceptable, even laudable for a person to identify as a gender other than the one with which he is born. Another is that it is not acceptable for a person to identify as a race other than the one with which he is born. Thus, Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney are brave champions to be celebrated, while Rachel Dolezal should be scorned. There are exceptions of course. If you are an influential pillar of the Left – say, like Elizabeth Warren – then you will be forgiven for assuming minority racial status with less than 1/1,000th representation in your DNA. Another rule is that it is perfectly appropriate to detain and separate from his family a U.S. citizen who breaks our laws. (Try getting arrested ank and see how long you remain with your family.) But an illegal immigrant who breaks our laws and is detained and separated from his family may be entitled to as much as $450k from our government.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

Of course, there are also a host of rules about which pronouns are appropriate or even demanded for various people depending on what is in their respective heads. At this stage, rules for appropriate adjectives appear to have escaped such requirements.

Aside from who gets to hold the mantle of “Blue rule arbiters,” another challenging issue is emerging. That issue pertains to how long people will adhere to, and how strictly they will adhere to the given Blue rules. Wokeism is dependent upon the bulk of society essentially playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules in this regard, while separate rules are extended to select candidates.

Wokeism depends on their opponents being decent and honest, but malleable folks who will allow themselves to continue to be taken advantage of – perhaps shake their heads at the Blue rule du jour, comply, and go back to work. Thus, the racism, sexism, and other biases continue and expand.

But what happens when fair-minded folks realize that increasingly, they are the victims being exploited by the expanding labyrinth of Blue rules and ranks of undeserving prize recipients? When enough people decide that the shark has finally been jumped – enough children have been exposed to drag queens in thongs, enough teenagers regret having their bodies surgically changed to a different gender, enough unqualified candidates have beaten out more qualified candidates for admission, scholarships, and jobs, enough female athletes have been denied the opportunity to compete on a fair playing field, enough Silicon Valley Banks have been bankrupted by harmful ESG policies, enough Blue candidates realize that supposedly preferential treatment has actually hurt more than helped them, etc. – then the honest, decent people may revolt. Rightly or wrongly, they may stop playing by the senseless rules that get rewritten to the advantage of the Left every 15 minutes. They may launch a New Blue movement.

What would that mean? Consider this thought experiment. What if a large number of the supposed “oppressors” (Asians, Whites, heterosexuals, Larry Elder and Clarence Thomas) suddenly identify as being Blue? What if a very large percentage of these groups simply check a box on the given application that corresponds to a Blue category or publicly proclaim to be in this category? There is some evidence that this is already happening.

Legally speaking, it is their right to do so for perhaps the two largest Blue categories – gender and race. Only the candidate can determine this; and it is illegal for the interviewer, employer, admissions officer, etc. to counter or even ask the candidate about race, gender, or religion – other than for reporting such stats to the government. Only inclusion in some native American tribes requires an actual DNA or quantum blood test. But historically, fair-minded people have regarded such moves as immoral or unfair. Will that view continue?