“Bigger than Trump’s inauguration.” “The largest political demonstration since the Vietnam War.” The media hivemind has declared the “Women’s March” an unequivocal success — but what did it accomplish? And if it was truly a march by, for, and about women, then why were numerous women’s organizations prevented from participating? And, most importantly of all, who wrote the checks?
That last question is the easiest to answer: George Soros was almost certainly the funding source and not-quite-invisible hand behind the march.
Given that Mr. Soros has been a vocal advocate of population control (in Western countries, anyway) it’s no surprise that the “official platform” of the Women’s March was deliberately designed to exclude “anti-choice” feminists. Women who held pro-life views were still permitted to join the march, but they were not permitted to be part of the dialogue on the march’s platform or goals, nor were their organizations permitted to sponsor or partner with the march.
Of course, there was an anti-abortion organization at the very heart of the Women’s March — CAIR, the Islamic PR front group, was a major partner of the event, sponsoring free hijabs for all female attendees and offering free classes on how to tie a hijab right there at the march. The Islamic faith is anti-abortion according to CAIR, but Mr. Soros was somehow willing to turn a blind eye to that “anti-choice” position.
So, the question becomes: What if you held a “women’s march” where pro-life Christian women were unwelcome but “honor killings”, genital mutilation, death by stoning for rape, and the forced subjugation of women were not only welcome, but part of the actual platform? What if you held a “women’s march” to protest Mr. Trump’s “pussy-grab” comment, and it was supported by the female reporter who famously said “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs“?
After some considerable thought about this, I’ve decided that the “women’s march” is best understood as an autoimmune response on the part of the Clinton Archipelago. The inhabitants of the Archipelago have become accustomed to life in the one-party state of Urban America, where there is but a single acceptable opinion about each and every possible topic from abortion (should be free, on demand) to immigration (should be unlimited but actual settlement of the immigrants should be Somewhere Else).
There’s no free and frank exchange of views on the Clinton Archipelago; you are part of the progressive panopticon and any deviation from the party line will render you an unemployed unperson. I’ve personally witnessed this in corporate America; you are free to express any political opinion as long as it adheres to the modern combination gospel of fiscal conservatism/social liberalism. If you fail to express the requisite amount of enthusiasm for these things, you may be called on the carpet: “You’re not for Trump… are you?” is a phrase I’ve heard multiple times in various offices over the course of the past year. And who would say “Yes!” under those conditions? You might as well be a gay man in Fifties rural America at that point; if they don’t walk you out the door posthaste they will at least put a parking boot on your career. The alert reader will recognize that our nation’s tilt towards “liberalism” has really just exchanged one kind of Puritan thinking for another. In 1817 they’d have driven you out of town for being gay; now they’ll drive you out of business for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.
No wonder, then, that everybody on the Archipelago thought the election was a done deal, a formality. Everybody they knew was #WithHer! The only question that anybody had: would this be a mere defeat of the “disorganized, disheartened” Trump, or would it be the “Wave election” that would ensure a permanent progressive mandate for limitless change?
Mr. Trump’s commanding electoral-college victory was no more understandable or comprehensible to those people than an alien invasion would be to a Victorian-era farmer. It felt unreal and therefore illegitimate to the people of the Archipelago. I cannot stress enough how different this was from Mr. Obama’s victory in 2008. A lot of people didn’t like that victory, but they understood how it came to pass. So while you had some resistance to Mr. Obama’s Presidency, to put it mildly, the vast majority of those who were opposed understood that there was no way to simply keep it from happening.
Making things even more difficult was the fact that the much-vaunted Obama (jobless) recovery has taken place almost entirely on the Archipelago. The market is up! Salaries in the city are up! Prices are up! Massive residential skyscrapers are darkening the skies above Central Park! How could anybody vote against that?
And finally we have the unpleasant but accurate fact that our society has raised a generation of women, most of whom are white, who have become accustomed to “having it all” and getting their way. As my black pal Rodney always says, “The greatest beneficiaries of diversity politics are… white women.” It’s true. Thanks to three generations of social change, women have the advantage over men. They are more likely to go to college, more likely to succeed in corporate America, more likely to be promoted for all opportunities below the C-suite, far less likely to die or be severely injured on the job. It’s a woman’s world out there, and those women are used to having their way.
Put all of that together, and it’s plainly obvious what the Women’s March was: it was a reactionary movement. It was a march to protest against change, a march to preserve the status quo. It was the belated response of a group of ultra-privileged, left-leaning, supremely successful women who want to keep things Exactly. The. Way. They. Are. Right. Now.
What appeal could Mr. Trump’s agenda possibly have for them? Let’s see:
- Reduce immigration? But who would do my gardening or cook for me or keep restaurant meals cheap?
- Bring jobs back to America? But all the media, finance, and university jobs are already here!
- Tariffs on trade to encourage American production? Why would we want to reduce the cash flowing in from Seattle and other port cities just so we can send money and jobs to the redneck poors in Alabama or Ohio?
- Get rid of Obamacare? But Obamacare makes us feel good about the poors, and anyway we all have “Cadillac” health plans from our employers!
- Conservative Supreme Court? But what will happen when one of us wants a third term abortion?
- Keep Islam out of America? But… Eat, Pray, Love! Those men are so much more interesting than American nerds!
You get the idea. There’s nothing in the Trump platform that remotely appeals to people who are already sitting on the top of the heap. And it explains why the DNC sabotaged Bernie’s campaign; he was no more palatable to the Manhattan junta than Trump is. The only acceptable way forward was “Stronger Together”, continuing the enrichment of the one percent at the expense of white trash out in the Midwest.
Well, turns out white trash can vote. Sorry about that.
History tells us that reactionary movements rarely succeed. The Women’s March will be no different. Nobody with any secure grasp of reality is going to be influenced by a bunch of spoiled brats demanding an election mulligan. Mr. Trump will conclude, correctly, that Middle America is horrified by the inauguration-protest buffoonery taking place across the country, and he will take care to campaign against the worst stereotypes of the marches in 2020. The people on the Left whose slacktivism can be satisfied by attending a one-day march (I’m not naming names here, but hint hint, look at things I’ve written recently on this site) will be satisfied.
In the end, the March will only impact two groups of people. The #BlackLivesMatter movement has been significantly diminished by comparison to the Women’s March; Mr. Soros will no doubt notice that he gets more for his money when he funds white women. And the “intersectional” feminist movement will have to think long and hard about the fact that some women truly are more equal than others when it comes to power and influence. Ten years from now, a lot of women, particularly those who are religious, rural, or lower income, will look back and say that January 21st was the day that the feminist movement cut them out for good.
Oh, and while you had your media-directed eyes focused on the March, the head honcho at Foxconn announced a potential $7 Billion factory in the USA. It’s not glamorous work, and it probably won’t even be pleasant. But it’s likely to be real — and as I always say, reality isn’t interested in your opinion, whether you’re wearing a pink hat or not.