Why everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others
During a meeting with Eric Adams, the newly elected mayor of New York, the leader of the New York chapter of Black Lives Matter Hawk Newsom addressed to the mayor elektu with threats. He warned that if Adams decided to reinstate the crime-fighting unit in the city police structure that had been abolished by his predecessor, there would be “riots”, “fires” and “bloodshed.” The aggressive activist called on Adams not to allow “any Gestapo to appear here who will harm our people.”
Photo: Alexey Merinov
Adams, in turn, warned Newsom, along with other leaders of the violent black rights movement, that the violence would have to be answered. The next day, Adams stated that no one would be able to intimidate him and that the individuals threatening him were “marginalized outnumbered” who could not speak on behalf of the African American community.
There are several points here that deserve comment. First, Adams, 61, is African American. Second, he served with the New York Police Force for 22 years and rose to the rank of captain before becoming Senator of the New York State Legislature and then Prefect of Brooklyn, one of the five administrative districts of New York City. He already knows the problems of the New York law and order better than the apologists for the struggle through “riots”, “fires” and “bloodshed”.
It would be logical to assume that he would not only warn aggressive brawlers about the consequences of possible atrocities, but also sue them for the threat of violence. But even Eric Adams has little guts for such a demarche – after all, this is Black Lives Matter, dear people! Although, probably, those are right who consider them not a legitimate human rights movement, but the heirs of the Black Panther extremists of the 1960s-1980s.
The trouble is that it is precisely the “small marginals”, in Adams’s words, and not the social mainstream, that determine the vector of social development. The data of a recent sociological survey conducted in the USA caught my eye: 76% of respondents believe that “excessive political correctness” prevails in America. There is no doubt that it dominates: reverence for the radicals from Black Lives Matter and kneeling repentance at their request for other people's racist sins is just one example of many.
Here is another example of political correctness brought to the point of absurdity by the small marginals and ultra-progressive liberals who put the marginals on a pedestal. Recently, aspirated American television and radio stations reported the “most important” news: the US State Department issued the first passport, which instead of the gender of the subject indicated the gender “X”. A remarkable achievement!
I think that even more than 76% of Americans disapprove of such an innovation. But the small marginals who demanded this, with the support of highly tolerant liberals, achieved their goal. How did those who achieved their goal, thanks to whom, since August of this year, preschool children (and schoolchildren – even more so) in Scotland have the right to declare a change of gender and name without the consent of their parents. I want – I will be “X”, but I want – I will turn from a boy into a girl and change my name John to Mary. And then the parents will be presented with a fact.
As stated in a statement by the Scottish Deputy Prime Minister regarding this “achievement”, “a transgender young person (4-5 years old. – IB) may not have informed her family about her gender identity. Reckless disclosure of it can cause unnecessary stress to a young person or expose them (this is how the leaders of political correctness avoid the pronouns “he” and “she” – IB) danger … Therefore, it is better not to share information with parents or guardians without prior consideration and consideration views and rights of a young person. ”
In other words, four-year-old John informs the teacher that he will now be Mary, and the teacher and director should not tell the parents of the future Mary about this – in order to take into account “their” (Mary's) “views and rights.” A friend of mine from Glasgow, a man of an old formation, like me, spoke about this apotheosis of insanity in such words that the Scottish beacons of tolerance, hearing them, would say that he does not understand at what time and in what place he lives. They would probably advise him to migrate to the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era, or, in extreme cases, to today's Russia. And he, I think, would not have strongly objected.
Another British acquaintance of mine, a resident of London, recently sent me an Internet publication containing harsh remarks about Muslims. He accompanied his message with a host of signs of approval that are used in Internet communications (thumbs up, applauding hands, etc.). My friend is not at all an aggressive person, but the desire to see severity in relation to guests who oppress the hosts is quite understandable. Immigrants from Muslim countries living in Great Britain often set up Sharia courts as an alternative to English legal proceedings, let “Islamic patrols” go through the streets to make remarks to passers-by about dress and behavior, etc. In Russia, as we know, not everything is smooth either: some immigrants from the Muslim regions of our country and the near abroad are trying to implement their charter in the “alien monastery” of Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities, where the population would like to see them respect the local rules of life .
In Russia, there is a strange tolerance of the authorities to excesses, which are sometimes perpetrated by guests from the south and east. I would venture to suggest that this is more often explained by ordinary corruption than by a tolerant attitude towards “other cultures”. But this tolerance is nothing compared to what is happening, for example, in Denmark. Some mosques have become recruiting centers for jihadists and mouthpieces for extremist propaganda, but there is no further discussion of the legality of their possible closure. Particularly different, for many years, is the mosque in the city of Aarhus, which, as the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende wrote, openly collects donations in the Middle East and promotes radical Islam. Many “jihad warriors” with Danish passports who have joined the ranks of terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq have completed ideological training in a mosque in Aarhus.
Does this mean that most Danes are in favor of such connivance in the name of “multiculturalism”? Not at all. There is a scandalous minority of left-wing liberals demanding respect for any quirks and excesses of the “multi-cult” that run counter to the age-old values and way of life of the Danish people – for the simple reason that all “multi-cults” are a minority. What happens with the rights of the majority – nobody cares, except for the majority itself, which has long become silent. If you object loudly, you will become the object of a politically correct witch hunt, and difficulties in your career will arise.
However, difficulties can be even when you belong to the very minority, but not a revered one, such as African Americans or transgender people, but to one that few people know about. Recently, Kao Li Yang, a licensed American physician, applied for a doctorate at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Maryland. She was denied on the grounds that she belongs to an “overrepresented” racial/ethnic group – Asians.
Young is a Hmong by nationality: this small ethnic group lives in several countries of Southeast Asia, and in the United States there are very few tribesmen. But they decided to enroll her in Asians, and those in America are the most successful students of all levels. No one learns better than the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. For this they are severely discriminated against – so as not to take away places in universities from academically lagging behind, but related to the “correct” minorities of young people. There are preferential admission conditions for African and Latin Americans, and deliberately difficult for Asians. As for white students. All attempts to achieve justice through the courts have so far been unsuccessful.
This sad list can be continued indefinitely. But let's try to answer the question: what to do? It seems to me that we need to ensure that the interests of minorities – racial, gender and any other – are not provided to the detriment of the interests of the majority. And so that the degree of “respect” of minorities is determined not by their scolding and debauchery, not by their offerings to those in power – in the form of money or votes in elections, – not by the demagogy and litigation of their politically correct lawyers, but by the real equality of people before the law and public morality. >