I read the other day an article from a labor organizer who was treating illegal alien workers in the same stroke as American workers, like he cared equally for them.
We see the letter string LGBT, without really recognizing that the T is really in opposition to the rest. You can only be “gay” or “lesbian” if you recognize that men and women exist, and are different. To this point, I was reading a trans activist the other day who was claiming that BEING GAY is transphobic.
This morning, I was reading this:
An excerpt:
five years ago, I first started seeing lesbians were being publicly shamed, sexually harassed, and demonized by straight men calling themselves lesbians.
These men also tended to call themselves progressives, feminists … They keep telling us now that they are absolutely indispensable to the women’s movement, and we cannot do without them. Everyone can always see this behavior, and they always get away with it.
I didn’t think — and I still don’t — that sexually harassing lesbians is a good way to be inclusive. So I objected.
It turns out it’s a firing offense on today’s left to complain about men sexually harassing lesbians if that man says he feels like he’s a lesbian.
That harassment still goes on, and if anything, it has gotten worse. Women share shocking screenshots with me from lesbian dating apps, which are now just simply packed wall-to-wall with men. These men have even started getting women’s [social media] profiles suspended for saying no to them and refusing to recognize their gender and validate their feelings.
Core truth: YOU HAVE TO PICK SIDES. You cannot be pro-women, in Sweden, and pro-immigrant. They are incompatible. You have to prioritize and choose.
You cannot be a feminist, and be pro-transgender. The latter don’t recognize the construct of “woman” and are doing their level best to completely disrupt and destroy true women’s athletics.
You cannot be in favor of essentially unrestricted and unregulated illegal immigration AND claim you support American workers. Cesar Chavez–who I cite endlessly because in the Southwest there about as many roads named after him as Martin Luther King Jr.–understood this. He organized LEGAL Hispanic workers, who were being abused since even though they were either citizens or had green cards, their inability to speak English, and/or inability to really understand our system, led to their systematic exploitation, which Chavez worked his whole life to stop. Illegals, who really amount to scabs in this whole thing, made all of that harder. They eroded his gains, made regression easier. So he hated them, and on at least one occasion sent his guys out to the desert to beat up and intimidate illegals who were camping there.
Thinking about it, the only continuity running through any of this mess is LOYALTY TO PARTY. Who wins, always? Those in power. If they want you running in this direction this morning, and that direction in the afternoon, you yourself cannot claim moral continuity. You can’t claim you believe anything, personally. What you value, ALL you value, is conformity to those in power.
All of the examples I cited above conform to this matrix.
And there is what I call, or have taken to calling–and I think I posted on this but can’t remember–the Law of Recency. This is of course a learning principle, but here I would define it as “where alleged victims are concerned, the most recent to get our attention has primacy over all others.”
Blacks have primacy over the working class, but illegals have primacy over blacks. Transgenders have primacy over LGB’s, who have primacy over women. The Law of Recency is how the Democrats have abandoned substantially all actual Americans, without most quite realizing this is the case. It’s astonishing, but really the inevitable outcome of people subordinating their own judgement to those of power elites. The will to see atrophies. The capacity for perception, for squaring up principle and action, slowly withers.
And the continual evocation of anger helps mask all this. When you are angry, you are not thinking. All they have to do is point out one crime, one injustice, and ignore the counterbalancing, often worse injustice. Children here illegally are treated poorly, we are told. Ignored is that 1) their parents sent them here, knowing this was the case; and 2) most of the children throughout Central America live in shit situations ALREADY, and we can’t save all of them. That is the job of the adults in the region, and most of them are corrupt and violent. It’s sad, but it is not ultimately our primary or even secondary responsibility. This is a situation for international charity, and would not be hurt at all by an airlift of books by Hayek and Friedman.
You have to pick sides. Either you do, or you are a politician, and worthy of receiving all the condemnation that job evokes with morally normal people.