Certificates · Culturalism · Federal Government

The Illusion of Resistance

Much clucking and chirping is afoot in the GOP Twittersphere over surprisingly good House election outcomes for the 2020 election. Republicans won a handful of seats, and may end up forcing the Dems as low as 220 representatives, a weak majority over next year’s Congress. Though this might seem exciting to politicos and their ilk, the result simply outlines yet again the haplessness of belief in resistance-style politics championed by both the Right and Left.

If we cycle back to 2010, the conservative party used Tea Party anger against Obamacare and “wasteful spending” to power its 63-seat swing against Democrats, leading to a majority of 242. They fell short in the Senate, but nevertheless gained seats. Now, did America see historic cuts or entitlement reform? Absolutely not, because GOP resistance amounted to simply opposing tax increases on the wealthy, whilst blocking serious spending reductions at every turn. Such bumbling proceeded on to the 2012 presidential election, which rewarded the dedicated TP activists with a campaign platform sworn to protect Mitt Romney from tax penalties and back a budget plan with net cuts of only $155 billion. Why? Because the Tea Party quickly became a subsidiary of Koch Brothers interests, not the average American.

In late 2011, Occupy Wall Street protests exploded across the country, determined to draw attention to corporate greed. Despite their fierce tenacity, and the relative pro-corporate leanings of Barack Obama, the protestors ultimately ended up serving as a political and financial cow to help Democrats retain the presidency. The people insistent on getting money out of politics helped return a figure who raised more from Wall Street corporations than his “pro-business” Republican opponent.  Once more, an allegedly populist movement got co-opted by the financial mainstream, and with scarcely a cry issued.

More recently, the Black Lives Matter riots have shown a similar nature. Although presuming to oppose a tyrannical police state praying on minorities, the street advocates and their “La Resistance” friends have no conflict with blindly obeying the dictums of CDC officials to “mask up,” or translating their movement into a train of endorsement for Biden, perhaps the vilest plutocrat to attain office in short memory. The very idea that committed protestors happily obey the medical industry complex as they pretend to stand for justice, or submissively quiet down to help a Democrat attain power; said actions demonstrate a brilliant lack of autonomy and agency which undercut the primary themes. Nothing is really being disrupted, only the comfort of political opponents.

So it’s all well and good that Republicans are excited about their prospects, but these remain meaningless without action. Until legislation is on the desk—signed—their fist-waving and proclamations about being “loyal opposition”  will stay as mere words. For opposition is futile, and resistance an illusion.

Culturalism

Are Gay Men Braver Than Straights?

Throughout modern history, gay men have been stereotyped as weak, effeminate, emotional, and inferior to their straight equivalents. The terms “Nancy boy” or “flamboyant” give currency to this image, with gay fellows viewed as essentially male versions of women who over-dramatize things for the sake of attention.  They are abject “queens,” filling a role in society but never quite measuring up to the level of masculinity reserved for the primary orientation, especially those versions who are conservative in nature.

Strangely enough though, reality beckons in a different direction. Across the globe, gay or bisexual men have emerged as a visible challenge to social decline and demographic threats, even as their straight (and usually Christian) equivalents stand idly by. This post is not designed to oversimplify, but at least as far as the political classes are concerned, straight men continue to let down the cause of cultural warfare in favor of big financial interests.

We can commence in Europe and highlight the question of Islam. In Holland, where Islamic migration has created a significant problem for the native population, it was Pim Fortuyn who led the political front in opposition, while straight conservative men played the milquetoast, “promote economic growth” card. Fortuyn, himself a Catholic yet also openly gay, would pay the ultimate price when he was assassinated before elections in 2002.

Moving southeast a bit, we encounter the legacy of Jorge Haider, a bisexual nationalist who led the Freedom Party of Austria and the later Alliance for Austria to great political acclaim, only to be (I suspect targeted) for a premature end in 2008. His most visible successor is “HC” Stratche, an absolute disaster (and possible plant) who destroyed the best chance of the FPO at enacting federal migration policies in years with his petty corruption. The consequence is a coalition government including the Green Party, and overall watered down internal security policy.

Our friends in Japan had their own version of a gay icon in the form of Yukio Mishima, who famously attempted to restore the Imperial Japanese system and died in the process, leaving a beautiful literary legacy behind along with several children. In contrast, the present Japanese nationalist scene is dominated by Shinzo Abe, a neoliberal activist who has never sired a single child. Abe is not all-bad, to be sure, but the stark  separation in approaches is telling.

America’s national scene demonstrates a markedly similar conflict. Those termed as “strong conservatives” include the likes of James Lankford and Mike Lee, both dedicated sell-outs to multinational corporations who care nothing about the nation’s long-term destiny.  Religion and traditional values are at best sleeve badges to attain votes, and little else. In contrast, openly gay journalists like Milo Yiannopoulos have made fools of progressives, while officials such as Richard Grenell do what their straight predecessors were too timid to accomplish, domestically and on the international stage.

Perhaps it comes as a function of the social isolation experienced by gay males steeling their resolve against the world, but the phenomenon is nonetheless intriguing. Married straight men with wives and children frequently prove themselves to be dithering weaklings who will accede to protest groups in a heartbeat simply to appear “tolerant,” even while the same respect is not afforded to individuals who back them. Is this effort due to a feeling that they must “keep the peace,” both economically and on the home front?

I believe so, and the implications are dreadful. It is time for us as straight men to seriously consider which aspect matters more: money, or our national future?