(Alternately, “Leftist Droppings”)
This article is highly informative:
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and a group of 14 other attorneys general penned a letter to Target CEO Brian Cornell this week expressing concern about the store’s removal of some of its Pride products.
Target lit a media firestorm last month when it announced it pulled an unspecified number of products from its shelves after the company faced “confrontational behavior” at its stores as well as threats of violence on its customer hotline.
While Ellison and AGs from California, New York, Maryland and more offered support for Target’s intention to keep its workers safe, they questioned if Target gave in to threats.
“While we understand the basis for this action, we are also concerned it sends a message that those who engage in hateful and disruptive conduct can cause even large corporations to succumb to their bullying,” the AGs wrote, “and that they have the power to determine when LGBTQIA+ consumers will feel comfortable in Target stores or anywhere in society.”
Of course, neither Target’s workers nor its (remaining) customers are in any danger. They have no objective reason to feel “unsafe,” regardless of their sexual and political alignments. That’s not the point. The point is to keep the LGBTQ “pride” pressure at the maximum.
The above shows us three important things about the Left:
- Agenda: Forcing LGBTQ “pride” crap upon normal Americans.
- Priority: Worth involving high law enforcement officials and veiled threats.
- Method: Redefining normal Americans’ reactions to “pride” marketing as bullying.
The agenda is plain enough: thrusts by the LGBTQ promoters, particularly the promotion of transgenderism, are very much in the Left’s interest. The priority takes a moment to discern; state attorneys-general are far more significant players in public affairs than most suppose, as the law enforcers of their states answer to them. The method, as it so often is, is the redefining of entirely legitimate consumer behavior – i.e., the choice not to shop at Target – as “bullying,” a prosecutable offense in most states. While it’s rather difficult to prosecute persons whose identities are unknown, that’s a mere detail. The attack rhetoric of the attorneys-general is what matters.
There’s a ball-under-the-shirt aspect to this. Those attorneys-general aren’t aiming at prosecuting consumers for not shopping at Target, an absurd undertaking. Their concern is Target’s response to the loss of consumer traffic. They want the LGBTQ “pride” campaign “out loud and proud,” represented conspicuously in as many retail establishments as possible. Forcing arrant abnormality on normal people requires a massive full-court press.
Normalizing abnormality is the whole point. It’s been so effective an entering wedge that the Left has come to depend on it. Homosexuality, S&M, transgenderism, pedophilia, paraphilia, and all the other “alternative lifestyles” are confined to small minorities of the American populace. They’re most definitely not normal. Moreover, when they act out publicly, they offend and frighten the normal majority. This is especially so among parents with minor children.
I doubt those left-wing attorneys-general can do anything to reverse the boycotts. Consumers have too many alternatives from which to choose. Wise marketing executives have already noticed the reactions against the “pride” campaigns. Few of them are so strongly Left-aligned that they’ll enlist their companies in the cause, only to see what’s happened to Anheuser-Busch and Target happen to them. So what do those attorneys-general expect from their marshaled expressions of “concern?”
This is a development that deserves ongoing attention.
4 comments
Skip to comment form
I think it’s important to come up with some variant label for a collectivism where the central authority indirectly takes over the policies of private companies. Many of us see it as a form of fascism, but that label lacks the nationalism of those of the first half of the 20th Century. Being global makes it more aligned with the goals of the USSR, but with a few exceptions, like in Venezuela, have the companies been outright nationalized. Yes, companies in China are constantly working under that threat, but we don’t hear anyone calling the CCP a fascist regime either. Indeed, they don’t seem to care to incense their subjects (slaves?) with defiance against the world as did those of the Axis.
Maybe Regressivism or Repressivism could serve as the label simply because either one openly expresses all that the Prog Movement has been up to for about 200 years. Given your observation recently how our formally classless society now has allowed to arise an American aristocracy, that alone demonstrates a return to the double standard under historically repressive regimes.
Food for thought.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini
Proof then that it is just too bad then that right thinkers never really had control of the primary means of information dissemination. Our speech was overwhelmed by their incessant propaganda.
Fran, this is one example of how social engineering succeeds.
I suspect that one of the goals of the plandemic was to reduce, if not eliminate, the small business.
With only a few large corporations controlling the market control of the consumer becomes easier.
Evil Franklin