Is there a genealogist in the house?

From Mark Steyn,

On Monday evening I joined Tucker Carlson to discuss what he and I regard as a public policy question and what MSNBC regard as Tucker’s genealogical hypocrisy over his refusal to admit that his immigrant Swiss great-great-grandfather in 1860 justifies mass illegal immigration on an unprecedented scale 157 years later. First up was Tucker: More.

Reality check: Tucker articulated his position well, though his position amounts to a rational presentation of one side of a debate in which the rational presentation of the other side is seldom or never articulated.

The progressive needs open borders in order to continue the endless revolution by doling out tax money to low-tech people who will become a voting base for mere sustenance in a high-tech culture. And to the “helping professionals” who are paid to look after them. Another powerful voting base!

The low-tech migrants may not approve of transgender-positive schools for their kids but they need EBT transfers, free medical/dental, and public housing. So they are exactly what the progressive needs. People who need him far too much to afford an opinion about whatever else he is doing.

A middle-class African American couple, by contrast, might be a hard sell for making young Jefferson wear a dress at school as part of a transpositive sex ed program. They might also be a hard sell for manipulating data about the economy or crime in order to pursue social justice goals because they need correct data for their businesses and lives.

But it doesn’t matter what they think. They are compelled to pay taxes to support newcomers who must put buying groceries before anything. That’s the rational case for what the progressive is doing – but we do not hear it discussed openly in traditional media.

Things may change over the generations, to be sure. but I for one do not have a crystal ball. I’d suggest looking at the next 20 years, as they are easier to forecast.

This is Donald Trump’s opportunity to blow. And plenty of people on both sides of the aisle will be happy to help him blow it. That’s because government itself wins as long as that African-American couple is compelled to forward money to the cause. And the Republicans’ dirty little secret is that so many of them are just in it for the government ops, win or lose, anyway. Decade after decade, Republican voters get taken in just like Conservative voters in Canada do. Recently, some tried to break away, hence US2016.

Mark’s key point is that even small cultural differences can matter, citing the Protestant vs. Catholic Irish and the Quebec separatist movement. Those differences arose from being on different sides of a given history. But what if the differences are not even small?

What if one culture genuinely believes that math and science education are not critical but the other side is a high-tech society? Anyone can blather that “Education is for everybody!” But does that mean that migrant teen Mary simply must get off Facebook and study her algebra?

Right now, there’s a big move in education to dumb down math and science for the sake of “diversity,” which essentially means that Mary doesn’t have to learn her algebra. Not learning it will put her out of the running for STEM jobs in a society where those are, increasingly, the good jobs.

But maybe Mary can get a job in social work or social justice education, encouraging other girls to feel good about being ignorant and helpless. And to feel good about being aggrieved too, provided they are aggrieved with the taxpayers who are forced to fund all this and not with the progressives who created it.

It gets worse. What if one culture genuinely believes that men have the right to beat their wives or have their daughters’ genitals excised? Or have those daughters murdered if they are a source of shame? These are not small differences and the progressive, accordingly, bends every effort – including attempts here in Canada at legislation – to keep them from being honestly discussed.

Progressivism does not shut itself down.

See also: Among “raging feminist fails” of 2017: Quebec feminists elect transgender man Feminism arose as a modern movement and is being killed by post-modernism. Modern movements depended on definitions; post-modernism dissolves them. If feminists cannot say that wife-beating is always wrong (that would be cultural appropriation) or that their concerns are for biological women who suffer inequities (that would be transphobia), they have nothing left but the fight for government grants among those who snatch the various pieces. There is no further coherence and none is sought.

and

Why doesn’t Europe resist? Their feminism will adjust; indeed, it already has. They traded everything for abortion and a bargain was sealed. Of course, they don’t enjoy being reminded of how far they have fallen. So they persecute those who remind them.

Share