You can't hide. I see you

Earlier this week, Matthijs Rooduijn of The Guardian wondered why far-right parties in Europe are becoming “mainstream” when once they were considered merely occupying the “fringe” of the political spectrum.  He notes that “Political scientists have demonstrated that the single most important reason why people vote for far-right parties is their attitude toward immigrants. In other words, those who support these parties tend to do so because they agree with them that immigrants are ‘dangerous others’ who form an economic and/or cultural threat to their own native group. This in itself is not remarkable – it just shows that many supporters of far-right parties are rational voters in the sense that they opt for outlets that express ideas they agree with and deem important.” It has become “safer” for voters for whom race is an important factor to vote for such parties because they have made the cosmetic “change” of cutting ties to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but  nevertheless “when it comes to their actual programmes, most of them have remained as radical as ever.” 

It isn’t much different in the U.S. or for that matter in Canada, the UK or Australia—you know, “civilized,” socially “progressive” countries whose immigration policies are, to put it mildly, racist. The Trump administration version of the Republican Party—and one with few exception Republican politicians have embraced—has become one that is far-right in nature, especially in regard to immigration from what he and Stephen Miller would call “shithole” countries. And who has helped to put someone like Trump in the White House? According to Moira Donegan of The Guardian, although the 2018 mid-term elections suggested that a few suburban white women who “inexplicably” voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton appeared to have “crossed over” due to his “sadistic” immigration policies (such as warehousing children in concentration camps) according to exit polls, the number who actually did was “depressingly” small. She went on to say that the “appearance” of white women abandoning the Republican Party over Trump’s policies may be only that:

If some white women are defecting from their traditional Republican loyalties, others – half – are staying. The trend of white women’s shift to the Democratic party, while real, also seems to be happening much more slowly than the most hopeful analyses predicted. Last month the New York Times ran a story on what it claimed was widespread support for the Democratic Texas Senate hopeful Beto O’Rourke among white evangelical women. The story contained accounts by white women who were disgusted by the Trump administration’s internment of refugee children at the border, and who had resolved to vote for Democrats. It suggested that the support of these white women could be decisive for Democrats hoping to make gains in a changing southern state. Instead, white women in Texas supported O’Rourke’s Republican opponent, the reptilian Ted Cruz, by 59%.

Donegan asks “What is wrong with white women?” Her answer: 

Why do half of them so consistently vote for Republicans, even as the Republican party morphs into a monstrously ugly organization that is increasingly indistinguishable from a hate group? The most likely answer seems to be that white women vote for Republicans for the same reason that white men do: because they are racist. Trump, with his raucous rallies and his bloviating, combative style, has offered his supporters an opportunity to savor the pleasures of being cruel. It is likely that the white women who voted for him in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020, find this racist sadism gratifying. It is fun for them.

Unfortunately, Donegan goes on to make the usual fraudulent feminist claims that “sexism” is partly to blame, that being racist gives white women a sense of power that they do not have in a “sexist” white male society. I don’t even know what that means. I don’t miss Chris Matthews’ departure after his hysterical attacks on Bernie Sanders, but the New York Post’s Kyle Smith is correct when he notes the absurdity of Laura Bassett’s charges that what the 70-year-old Matthews meant as a harmless compliment caused her to be “shaken” and “couldn’t breathe” and “undermined my ability to do my job well.” Smith noted that Bassett didn’t hide her real motivations for making the accusation: “She wanted Matthews fired for the way he interviewed Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.” It is interesting to note that Bassett was also among everyone else at MSNBC who was making outrageous charges to destroy Sanders, yet that was “OK.”

The truth of the matter is that anti-Hispanic immigrant racism is the “key” to this election, not alleged “sexism.” That is why the Trump administration is sending out his thugs making well-publicized sorties against immigrants, even those whose principle “crime” is taking their kids to school. In the Washington Examiner, Kimberly Ross charged that Elizabeth Warren and her supporters claiming that this election is about “sexism” after her Super Tuesday drubbing and soon to end campaign were due is disingenuous:

There are few things so intellectually lazy as concluding that a female candidate's lack of victory is mostly due to gender. This ignores not only the success of Hillary Clinton in 2016 but everything else that makes up an individual candidate and their appeal — or lack thereof. Reducing a female's lackluster political performance to misogyny is a weak defense against legitimate criticisms of their policy platform or rhetorical tone. Even then, it's unacceptable among modern liberals to describe a female candidate as unappealing or “unlikable” — even if, based on her personality, she is. Politics is a sport that requires voters like you for not only what you represent, but for who you are as a person. It is here that there is still a hesitancy to describe women seeking office as unpleasant, even if they are. And this very definition could easily apply to Warren, whose penchant for distorting the truth, far-left and poorly-thought-out plans, and air of inevitability all combine to make her intolerable.

Let us not forget that Warren showed her acceptance of racial injustice by posing as a “minority” even though she in fact is a white woman who enjoyed certain “privileges” and “entitlements” in this society because she is white. Excuses don’t wash; Molly Ball of TIME made the absurd claim that the 53 percent of white women voting for Trump was a “sexist myth,” but she stumbled when after being forced to admit that every survey taken subsequently showed that the majority of white women voted for Trump over Clinton, she claimed it was still a “statistical tie”—which was like saying the 2016 vote in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were “statistical ties.” It doesn’t wash.

Being an “ethnic” male, I refuse to live in a world of illusion. I don’t have the same “privileges” and “entitlements” of a white woman in this society. I know what I see, and where it comes from. It isn’t just white women I confess; I was getting something out of a vending machine at a  Seattle community college when a white male, giving a tour of the campus to some Asian students, told them to watch out for people standing around the vending machines because they might be there waiting for someone to forget to push the credit card finish purchase button and steal your money, and they all nodded knowingly at the "Mexican." These kind of bigoted assumptions are all around, and given greater life in the Trump created universe, where it has become “acceptable” to act out on one’s prejudices and paranoia of the objects in human form who "do not belong" or are not "real" Americans. Claims of “sexism” by those who actually benefited from gender politics mean nothing to a person  who sees Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren claims to be “victims” as the highest level of hypocrisy. And I hate hypocrisy above all else.

After I composed the above the following occurred: I was taking a shortcut through the parking lot of a church near downtown Seattle on my way to work; there were only a few cars present, so I didn’t have to weave around any. As I was passing through a white female walking opposite noticed me with that look of “concern,” and turned around. I knew exactly what she was going to do: she walked back to her car that was parked there, peaked through the driver’s side window and checked to make certain the door was locked. It happens every time—someone, especially an "entitled" white woman—becomes paranoid when they see a “Mexican-looking” male, because deep in some dark place, they believe all the paranoid stereotypes about “criminality” that the Trump administration has been expectorating. When she came back, I called out “Nazi freak!” She didn’t look my way, only looking straight ahead to avoid all contact with my humanity. “You can’t hide,” I called out. “I see you.”