Give credit to the American left: they have impeccably mastered the art of being utterly shameless.
Do you remember the story of the lesbian waitress, Dayna Morales, who allegedly got stiffed on a tip by a bigoted couple? And how it eventually came out that she concocted the whole thing out of thin air? Yeah, well, this past week’s latest incident of fake viral homophobia makes that look practically innocent.
In a nutshell, what happened was this: two radio hosts in Long Island decided to spike their ratings by forging a fake RSVP to a child’s birthday party. According to the fictitious account, the mother of one of the guests wrote a homophobic screed on the back of the invitation, addressed to the birthday girl’s two homosexual parents. The story quickly went viral and was picked up by Huffington Post, Jezebel, and all the usual suspects.
It blazed its merry way across the Internet until the two hosts came clean and said, “Whoops, actually we just made that up. Our bad.”
Let’s pass over the actions and motivations of the two radio jackholes who fabricated this whole sorry mess in the first place. One would have hoped that — so soon after L’Affaire Dayna Morales – the media would have exercised a little more skepticism before blindly running this story, if only to cover their own backsides in case it blew up (which it did).
Nope, that didn’t happen. And it wasn’t even that they swallowed it in an excess of credulity either. No, it was far worse! Jezebel reporter Lindy West admitted in her piece that it sounded fake to her, but she covered it anyway!
Of course, this note could be a fake just to get us all frothing and get this radio station’s name in the news. It kind of seems fake. What modern homophobe actually puts “lifestyle” in scare-quotes? Too on-the-nose, man. Also, who names their kid “Tommy” in the 21st century? Shoulda gone with “Bragen,” imo.
But, fake or not, “Beth”‘s homophobic mindset is real and common and gross. So froth away.
This is not just gross journalistic malfeasance at play here. Episodes such as this one are sterling examples of the classic left-wing tactic of the “noble lie.”
First formulated by the socialist thinker Georges Sorel, the “noble lie” was devised to address the problem of Karl Marx’s projections about economics and societal trends not coming to fruition. For Sorel, such details were unimportant. As long as people believed what Marx wrote to be true, they could be rallied to revolutionary action. Pillars of left-wing ideology were to be transformed from statements of objective fact into tenets of a new socialist faith.
Sorel’s intellectual heirs in America have defaulted to this tactic time and again. Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring is riddled with faulty math and shady logic. It doesn’t matter, because they served the pre-arrived conclusions and goals of the burgeoning environmentalist left. The same holds true for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It hardly matters to the left if the Earth is actually warming or cooling — or if humans are indeed having an adverse effect on the environment. As long as concern for the state of the planet serves as the impetus to push through long-dreamed economic controls on industry and commerce, AGW serves it purpose.
And who can forget the forged Texas Air National Guard documents that surfaced right before the 2004 election? To liberals, it was important that the public view George W. Bush as privileged draft-dodger, so the fake records were reported without proper vetting. And then, once it came to light that they were transparent forgeries, the documents were defended as being “fake but accurate.”
We are seeing the exact same thing here. The only difference is that this time the lie is at the service of the gay rights movement, and no “inconvenient truth” can be allowed to interfere with the left’s agenda.
“So what if this was fake?!” the liberals cry. “We know that this is how people who believe homosexuality is immoral really think! It’s all bigotry at its core!”
The question is, “What grand political purpose do these kinds of lies and aspersions serve?”
The answer is this: the American left seeks to win the battle of same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality by casting its opponents outside the pale of respectable opinion.
Americans take freedom of expression and public discourse very seriously, but only up to a certain point. Because of the history of entrenched racism in the South and the steps that had to be taken in the Civil Rights Era to uproot it — any point of view that is considered to be rooted in bigotry is deemed automatically invalid. Moreover, the individual or group espousing that view is considered a societal pariah, cut off from any kind of meaningful participation in public affairs.
The First Amendment still protects their ability to say what they will, but the political and cultural shunning that occurs is as effective in limiting their capacity to engage in politics as a jail cell.
Therefore, it does not matter to the left and their fellow travelers in the gay rights movement what the actual motivations are of their fellow citizens who desire to keep marriage as it has always been: between one man and one woman. All that matters to them is establishing that their viewpoint is the sole legitimate option. If by fair means or foul they can inculcate the myth that opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated by nothing more than hatred and bigotry, then according to our present set of rules, they win by default.
This is not the attitude of a movement that seeks a society governed by openness and toleration. This is a attitude of committed partisans who want nothing else than to reshape society into their own image and likeness, regardless of what anyone else may or may not desire. If the path to power involves running roughshod over the good faith and honest dialogue that undergirds our republican system of government, then — in their eyes — so be it!
When it comes to gender politics and the homosexual agenda, the left is not interested in compromise or coexistence.
Their sole goal in all this is the complete societal ostracization of any viewpoint that differs from their ideology of sexual Marxism.