Intersectionality at the Crossroads
It’s been known for a long time that revolutions eat their own, and it appears that the preposterously cobbled together coalition of leftist groups that tag their movement “intersectionality” is no exception. As the facts behind the Women’s Marches become more widely known, their organizers and the press, which covered for them, are covered in shame and deservedly losing traction.
In 2017 women (or is it womxn?) marched under a broad banner in opposition of President Trump. The hodgepodge banner under which they marched included women’s rights, immigration and healthcare reform, reproductive rights, the natural environment, LGBTQ rights, racial equality, freedom of religion, and workers’ rights. Apparently, the marchers were under the mistaken belief that all these issues had a common denominator and the boogeyman was Trump.
In fact, to take one example alone, low-skilled and semi-skilled workers had every reason to support the President’s view on the border. Indeed, the increase in support for the President among Hispanic and black voters is to my mind an indication they understand this better than do well-off women marching in pink pussy hats because Hillary lost.
Hispanics, by definition, are primarily a working-class demographic, as we on average own only a tenth of the household wealth of white families. Thankfully, President Trump’s policies of tax cuts and regulatory relief point to a brighter economic future for all wage earners, including Hispanics. For example, an incredible 2 million Americans have dropped off food stamps since Trump was elected. In the most recent government jobs report, wages for non-managerial workers rose at a 2.7 percent annual clip, the highest in a decade. The jobless rate for non-college graduates just hit the lowest level since 2001. These gains are highly beneficial to hard-working Hispanics, as Trump’s policies continue to lift the economic underdogs.
Moreover, in contrast to the assumptions of the leftist identity-politics hucksters, Hispanics are far from uniform on immigration issues, and actually take a very moderate and pragmatic approach to the border and enforcement. In fact, per Zogby Analytics exit polling from 2016, twice as many Hispanics believe immigration enforcement is too lax versus too stringent. Regarding the recent border issues, an Economist/YouGov poll found that only 20 percent of Hispanics support the previous policies of “catch and release” where families entering the country illegally are not detained but summoned to report back for a later hearing -- at which many never show up. Instead, 64 percent of Hispanics support either detaining the whole family together, or detaining parents and children separately. This will disappoint the Democrats, to be sure, but legal Hispanics hardly support open borders.
But the inconsistency between the views and associations of the march leaders and the useful idiots who followed their call was highlighted in recent weeks when the media were compelled to finally report what had been known for a long time but kept hidden from credulous consumers of their pap: the Women’s March leaders were linked inextricably to Louis Farrakhan, an anti-Semite, anti-homosexual, anti-white propagandist who spreads lies about slavery -- ignoring the most significant role of Moslems in it even to this day.
And the press hid the fact that women like Linda Sarsour were all in for Sharia, the religious-legal system that more than any other punishes women, gays, and blacks. Sharia creates the submission culture that keeps the poor at the bottom with little chance of upward mobility and society at such a low level of productivity that environmental protection and proper healthcare are unaffordable, and legitimizes slavery, which continues in places like North Africa. Indeed, her anti-American point of view was known months before the march in 2017 but barely, if at all, covered by the mainstream media.
Linda Sarsour, a national co-chair of the Women’s March on Washington -- whose stated mission is “to send a bold message… that women’s rights are human rights” -- is also an outspoken advocate of Islamic Sharia Law that restricts the rights of women, claiming Sharia is “reasonable” and has simply been “misunderstood.”[snip]
Sarsour, a Palestinian Muslim American, who has said she believes that America is a nation built on the values of genocide and slavery and that“nothing is creepier than Zionism,” spoke at the Women’s March last Saturday.
“I will respect the presidency,” she said. “But I will not respect this President of the United States of America. I will not respect an administration that won an election on the backs of Muslims and black people and undocumented people and Mexicans, and people with disabilities, and on the backs of women.”
Sarsour has openly supported Sharia law, a legal system that treats women much differently than men and punishes lawbreakers with flogging, amputation, and stoning.
Any claims by her that she wants participation by all, including gays, is probably true because it makes her movement seem more vast than it is. But her larger objectives are clear, given her long, documented history as a propagandist for the worst elements of the Nation of Islam and the Islamists. She wants to use them now to crush these useful idiots later if she succeeds.
When it finally became too obvious what was up, the organizers of the march this year in Chicago cancelled it.
It appears the march in Seattle has also been cancelled and instead workshops are scheduled around MLK events.
In Eureka, California, the march was cancelled because they couldn’t get enough minorities to participate in this nonsensical event:
"Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community," the press release went on to say. "Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community."
Other one-time marchers may be slower on the uptake than minorities, but then it’s been established that over the past decade IQs have been falling.
Of course, Democratic leaders once did understand the deleterious effect of open borders. At Instapundit, Ed Driscoll documents their opposition to such policies, until Trump tried to make the opposition concrete:
● What Changed?! Chuck Schumer 2009 kicks Chuck Schumer 2018 right in his badoobies on illegal immigration (video).
● “Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to remind Democrats that even former President Barack Obama spoke out against illegal immigration. Trump dug up a 2011 tweet from former President Obama which said: ‘I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.’ ‘I totally agree!’ Trump wrote, retweeting the former president.”
—The Daily Caller, yesterday.
● Harry Reid in 1993: It’s insane to reward illegal immigrants by giving their children birthright citizenship.
—Hot Air, October 30th.
● Bill Clinton warns of “the large number of illegal aliens” coming into America, and explains his crackdown at his 1995 State of the Union address.
—Instapundit, January 31st, 2017.
And while I’ve emphasized Linda Sarsour, it’s clear that she is far from the only anti-Semite, anti-white leader of the Women’s March charade.
Organizer Tamika Mallory argues that the very creation of Israel was a human rights violation and objected to the ADL being part of a group tagged to help Starbucks anti-bias work. And then there’s Carmen Perez:
Carmen Perez’s Jew-hatred became an issue this weekend when Jewish co-founder of Women’s March movement said she was forced out because by Perez and Mallory because of her Jewish Heritage.
Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism. [snip]
After that first march, the hatred continued
At a meeting days after the march, an argument broke out between Ms. Wruble and the other leaders.
Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez began berating Ms. Wruble, according to Evvie Harmon, a white woman who helped organize the march, and who attended the meeting at Ms. Mallory’s apartment complex.
“They were talking about, ‘You people this,’ and ‘You people that’ and the kicker was, ‘You people hold all the wealth.’ I was like, ‘Oh my God, they are talking about her being Jewish,’” said Ms. Harmon, whose account was first published by Tablet. “The greatest regret of my life was not standing up and saying ‘This is wrong.’”
Another Women’s March founder Rasmea Yousef Odeh is no longer in America, she was deported in October 2017 for concealing her murder/conviction of two Israeli college students.[snip]
So if you really oppose hatred put your pink pussy hats (and pink pussy yarmulkes) away and find an inclusive group to support.
The media, which did such a great job for so long burying the sentiments and objectives of the organizers of the women’s march, continues on, this time, serving as a mouthpiece of open borders, Qatar, and Iran.
The comment section of the Washington Post inormally is a place I avoid, filled as it is with low-information true believers, so I share the surprise of Ann Althouse that even they are not buying the sob story about immigrants and the virtue of open borders.
Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change. I think, for all the press resistance to Trump's fight against illegal immigration, minds have changed. It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration. I feel there's been much less talk about the suffering of the children, but when a child dies, like this poor boy, it will be reported, and it gives us an opportunity to see how Americans are reacting to a sad story about a child. I'm amazed at the reaction in The Washington Post. It's so Trumpian!
Actually, given the quotes of leading Democrats by Driscoll, I assume that the culture has “not changed radically since the fall of 2016,” it’s just that in the fall of 2016 Democrats shifted gears in a misguided effort to get needed Hispanic and low-information voters’ support, and, frankly, I believe that they picked the wrong hill to die on. With this shutdown they continue to follow the same stupid strategy.
It’s not only burying facts which would make the left look bad that distinguishes today’s media, the Washington Post abandoned journalistic ethics to propagandize for Qatar and Iranian interests and the rest of media fell in line with them. Don Surber documents the Khashoggi fiasco:
A Saudi paper, Arab News, reported, "Washington Post subtly admits Khashoggi columns were ‘shaped’ by Qatar."
The Post wrote, "Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to the Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government. Khashoggi also appears to have relied on a researcher and translator affiliated with the organization, which promotes Arabic-language education in the United States."
Published. The word is published.
This admission vindicated President Trump's reluctance to break relations with an 80-year ally. [snip] Khashoggi's death has been illuminating. The press blindly took up his cause, elevating him to the status of Time Magazine Thing Of The Year.
David Reaboi, a security expert, wrote five days ago, "Once President Trump released a robust statement supporting the US-Saudi alliance, intense political pressure was felt from anti-Trump forces in the American media, which pushed Democrats toward Qatar and Iran, and away from Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, the alliance had become a partisan issue; prominent Democrats in Congress began calling for a reevaluation of American policy toward the country. The intensity with which the Kingdom’s critics have attacked the US-Saudi relationship specifically points to more than just a target of opportunity. These critics could be placed into (at least) one of the following categories: (a) a pro-Iran position; (b) a pro-Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood position; and (c) anti-Trump. Often -- as with the case of the Washington Post -- it is a combination of all three.
So as the year winds to an end, we have still nothing to sustain the left’s claim that the Russians colluded with Trump. Instead we are seeing more evidence that the press is colluding with America’s enemies -- the anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semite, anti-women, pro-Islamists. No wonder they covered up what they knew about the Women’s March organizers.
Happy New Year.