I read some whining online about "the right-wing" (cover your daughters' eyes) engaging in terrible book censorship, banning this and that, boycotting beers and films to the point of driving down their prices. It would make sense if only they had the courage to call it by its name: "cancel culture."
Do you remember cancel culture? Do you remember when the shrieking minority felt, and still feels, entitled to destroy statues, burn books, and prevent conferences at the cost of wreaking havoc? Do you remember the "boycott this person" and "boycott that person," which compelled companies to bow to the agendas of these screaming monkey minorities?
When it happened with the screaming monkeys, what the thinking individuals did was remind them that they were "normalizing" something that should not be normal in a democracy: the suppression of others' voices, existence, and right to free speech.
Since the screaming monkeys felt empowered, they had no qualms about toppling statues, removing white musicians from the conservatory to avoid discomforting musicians of color, and if any company dared to produce anything vaguely "sexist" in their advertisements, they were in trouble.
And so, nonsense has consequences. Because once you silence me with the force of your screaming monkeys, I know I'm facing an existential threat: today you silence me by screaming, tomorrow you might do it by force. From that moment on, it's war.
And so, we come to the clash.
Bud paid a high price for their campaign in the US with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. It happened that a producer of lousy American beer (heavens, in the US they call "beer" what I piss after drinking real beer) chose the usual super Woke campaign to advertise their beer.
They initially wanted, as they declared, to "remove canned beer from the domain of masculine culture." Fine. But what does masculine culture do when you take away their beer? They buy a different one.
Thus, the boycott of this iconic beer began, a beer that had even made it into Country songs. The result? The company lost 17% of its sales, 24% of its stock value, Dylan Mulvaney is no longer doing ads for Bud, and the managers who came up with the idea are suspended indefinitely.
Was it fair? Absolutely not.
Is it normal? Absolutely. "Boycotting" is not a homophobic invention of the right. It has been normalized by all the various "boycott" campaigns that the radical left has been conducting for years. I know someone will say, "Boycotting someone because they are transgender is definitely unfair." Of course, boycotting someone because they live in a country you don't like is unfair too. If they had boycotted the brand because of a Mexican influencer, it would have been just as serious. But not if it had been an Israeli product. Oh no, those are the ones you boycott.
Those who normalized "boycotting" when they felt strong should now ask themselves: Was it wise to normalize boycotting anything, even for reasons that are analogous, equivalent, or identical to discrimination?
Those who lower the quality of political discourse and degrade the rules of the political game, pursuing momentary advantage, should wonder if they will be able to win with the new rules. And when it comes to politics, they should, even more wisely, question if they will be able to SURVIVE with the new rules.
The same is happening in the academic world, where book burning is making a comeback.
According to musicologists Nate Sloan and Charlie Harding, who work with the New York Philharmonic, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony represents everything they dislike about classical music and Western culture. As far as they're concerned, it's time to diminish Ludwig van because he "reinforces the dominance of white males and suppresses the voices of women, blacks, and the LGBTQ community."
Thus, the British Library wants to remove the bust of Beethoven, seen as a symbol of the "supremacy of Western civilization." There are even some idiots proposing that, in order to combat racism, we should stop referring to the great composers by their full names.
Anthony McGill, the principal clarinetist of the New York Philharmonic, has suggested that fifteen percent of a music organization's budget should be allocated to "addressing systemic racism." A critic from The Washington Post claimed that systemic racism "runs like rot through the structures of classical music." Vox has explained that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a symbol of white male "supremacy." Garrett McQueen, a classical music announcer on American radio, stated during a Composers Forum roundtable, "You are complicit in racism every time you listen to Handel's 'Messiah'." Simon Woods, the head of the League of American Orchestras, has apologized for his "whiteness."
When Alexander Neef took over as director of the Paris Opera, he immediately announced the disappearance of "certain works" commissioned by Rudolf Nureyev. Neef named them, from "Swan Lake" to "The Nutcracker." "Some works will undoubtedly disappear from the repertoire," Neef declared. They are deemed "too white."
Is everything fine? Is cancel culture good? Okay.
Now the rules have changed, and art can be censored. It has been normalized, made acceptable, and now it's part of the rules of the game. Great.
Result of the new rules:
Since the beginning of the year, 20 bills have been introduced in the United States to restrict drag queen performances in 15 states, all governed by Republicans. Some aim to force venues hosting drag events to be classified as "adult establishments," while others seek to prohibit them in public spaces such as libraries and parks.
The state of Tennessee has passed a law that bans all "adult cabaret" performances featuring "topless dancers, cubists, strippers, or imitators of men or women" in public spaces or where they are likely to be seen by individuals under 18 years old. Although the law does not explicitly mention drag queens and drag kings – artists who dance, sing, and perform imitations while wearing deliberately extravagant costumes and makeup to exaggerate the femininity or masculinity of their character – lawmakers involved in drafting the legislation have repeatedly stated that the primary purpose of the measure is to restrict "sexually suggestive drag queen shows."
So, which rule are conservatives violating now? The rules that you have ABOLISHED yourselves? Why are you shouting so much? You have NORMALIZED censorship, and now that it is turning against you, you cry foul? You should have thought about it earlier.
If I can censor Beethoven because he is too white, can't I censor someone for having a wig that's too big? Which rule would I be violating, if not a rule (freedom of expression) that you yourselves abolished?
Why can I ban a Mozart opera if it includes Papageno and Papagena, but not a Drag Queen ballet? Which rule am I violating, if not a rule that "Drag Queens" themselves have abolished to target Wagner?
I could go on for a long time, citing France as well. A country where street violence is being normalized, without considering what happens when the right sends their own squads to engage in violence on the streets.
It has already happened, by the way. The "end of clashes in the streets," even though it's embarrassing to believe, occurred when the LePenBoys took to the streets themselves.
And what law would they have banned, considering that street violence has been normalized?
I could remind you that, as I had predicted, the Kenosha shooter was declared innocent. "Not guilty on all charges," he was found not guilty for all accusations. The young man turned killer slumps down like a sack, sobbing on his lawyer, almost falling off his chair as Judge Bruce Schroeder congratulates the jurors and informs him that he is free. Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18-year-old, on that night in Kenosha, Wisconsin, reasonably feared being killed or injured, so he legally opened fire with the assault rifle he had brought to the protest. He killed two people and injured a third, all captured on video. The verdict says he did the right thing.
But once chaos in the streets, destruction, and violence have become normal, why is it not normal when someone pays the price?
Which rule was infringed, that a whole night of violence and lotting had not infringed already?
The radical left is skilled at worsening the rules of the game for their momentary advantage, but to their (catastrophic) dis-advantage in the long run.
So far, nothing strange. What surprises me, if anything, is the belated whining of those who are the cause of their own misfortune.
The proverb (Italian) always holds true:
"He who is the cause of his own misfortune, let him weep for himself."