The identity-politics lunatics are running the asylum.
Anyone who has ever spoken on a college campus will have felt the weariness that descends during the Q&A when audience members begin their “questions” with “As a woman…” “As a black woman…” “As a trans woman…” If Frances McDormand’s “inclusion rider” can be made to apply to something as elusive as the particular combination of talents required to bring a script to sparkling life, is it really such a stretch to imagine a House of Gays – that’s to say, a legislature predicated on appropriate representation of identity groups? After all, the left is already institutionally hostile to America’s electoral college, under which small, peripheral, recalcitrant white-privilege backwater states have a disproportionate say in the selection of a president. Instead of these obsolete, irrelevant, geographical boundaries, would it not make more sense for the Senate to reflect the balance of competing power interests in today’s America? A precise number of seats, determined by the Supreme Court, for gays, trans women, cis women, cis black women, trans Muslim women, cis illegal immigrants, etc?
Fine by me. Then we can insist on like representation for white Christian males, reserving a number of seats proportionate to OUR population percentage for us exclusively. Fair, right? Sauce for the goose and all that? If we grant the underlying premise—that gays, transgenders, blacks, women, etc cannot possibly be properly represented by anything other than one of their own—then that has to be the only reasonable conclusion, right?
Breath: not holding it. But still.
Oh, you can laugh, but it’s not so difficult to imagine a jurisdiction such as California proposing such changes to a state legislature. For example, not so long ago it was broadly accepted that the right to participate in choosing the government of your society was a privilege of allegiance to that society. Yet now Californians and many others are proposing the extension of voting rights to non-citizens – by which they mean not even lawful immigrants but persons whose very presence in the land is an act of lawbreaking that mocks the very concept of fealty. If you step back for a moment, that’s extraordinary: millions and millions of Americans who support such alien-voting proposals have abandoned, in the blink of an eye, the defining attribute of citizenship.
They’re citizens of the WORLD, dude, not anything so petty and conceptually constricting as a mere country. And certainly not any country as abominable as THIS one. FREE YOUR MIND, MAN.
For a majority of young people in particular, “free speech” is a cis het white male concept that is subordinate to identity rights. If you disagree with that proposition, you might schedule a debate on the merits of free speech at, say, King’s College, London – but the mob will break it up, throw smoke bombs, smash windows, put the security guard in hospital, and the college will take the mob’s side because you threatened their “safe space”. As I heard a decade ago in my battles with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, to officialdom it’s you freespeechers who are the problem, holding debates, talking about stuff, and thereby upping our security costs because of your needless provocation of the increasingly inarticulate varsity.
The dictatorship of the identitariat is spreading rapidly, as all bad ideas do, way beyond loony campuses. If the right to freedom of speech no longer has much purchase on society, the law of contract for the moment still prevails – so I congratulate VDare.com on extracting a five-figure sum from Hilton Hotels for screwing them over and canceling their annual Immigration Reform Conference in Arizona. Dare are opposed both to illegal immigration and the legal immigration enabled by the 1965 act. I can think of no reason why in a free society a person should not be entitled to hold such views. But, in the wake of last year’s statue-toppling frenzy, PayPal (a de facto Internet monopoly) booted out Dare, and other contractors, such as Hilton, followed suit. Some corporations do this stuff because they’re headed by social-justice ideologues who are genuine believers; others are merely jelly-spined wankers thrown into a tizzy by a couple of hostile Tweets coming over the transom. I have no idea into which category Hilton fall, but I certainly hope the “five-figure sum” was in the high five figures – and even then that isn’t really big enough to discourage this malign trend.
When identity becomes politics, free speech shrivels: governments, whether Canadian Liberals or British Tories or German Coalitions-of-all-the-no-talents, are prepared to sacrifice it, so why should twitchy, risk-averse corporate venue-renters be expected to defend it?
The really bothersome thing is something I saw mentioned someplace the other day by somebody or other: when all of these corporate shunnings, bannings, and denunciations go just one way, it becomes kinda difficult not to suspect that they’re a bit more than merely craven or “risk-averse,” fearful of the effects of bad publicity on the bottom line. As this unknown someone stated: when was the last time you remember even ONE of these little dustups resulting in a corporation announcing support for, say, the NRA? When all the chips end up on the Left side of the table every single time, it’s a safe bet the deck is stacked against the Right. The “corporate cowards” are more likely quiet fellow-travelers, if not outright Leftards themselves, Red in tooth and claw.
Which is, y’know, extremely ironic, and of right ought to lead Republicans to rethink their former reflexive support for them. Steyn goes on to lay out a hierarchy of the Identity Politics Peerage (you’ll never guess who’s currently at the top of the pecking order), which I’ll insist that you click on through to read all of.
Update! Ahh, it was Ace:
A friend noted the other day that a dating app he uses was now banning all references to guns. Another friend asked, “Have you ever seen a single corporation offer a similar Virtue Signal to the right? Has any corporation run a commercial or campaign similarly expressing solidarity with right-leaning traditionalists on any issue?”
Do any corporations attempt any kind of similar cultural courting of the right, transmitting the right’s values or at least subtly portraying them in a sympathetic light?
Unlike Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” we #WokeNormals, as Kurt Schlichter calls us, are now Woke to the fact that the corporate sector has been wholly captured by the transnational progressive left, and we — unlike the Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” won’t be doing them any further favors.
They can get their favors from the party they support in word and in deed: The Democrat Party.
And if the Democrat Party chooses to conduct a legislative heist and steal their money — to hell with them. You go to bed with a whore, you wake up with your wallet missing.
Seconded, with bells on. Let them find out just what sucking up to the Commie Left gets them.