We’ve all heard about “white privilege” until we’re sick to death of the phrase. Virtually every social problem in America is blamed on whites who supposedly have privilege and power based purely on skin color.
This is getting to be a tougher sell, when we realize that white applicants to Ivy League-type schools are disfavored and must score several hundred points higher than minority students on the SAT just to have a shot. Where is the white privilege in that, especially when this blatant racism is vociferously defended by all the so-called civil rights champions among us?
Democrats have been signaling since 2011 that they are not even trying to keep whites in their party. They’re ditching whites in favor of a coalition of minority groups, and intend to rely on identity politics from now until the end of time. Where is the white privilege in that? Whites are underprivileged and underserved in academia, in Democrat politics, and in America in general.
I would submit the real problem today, in our culture and in our politics, is not, in fact, white privilege but homosexual privilege. Despite their constant claims to martyrdom and victimhood, homosexuals have an entire array of privileges and powers that are based exclusively on their private sexual preferences, and they are privileges and powers that normal people do not possess. Homosexuals must be catered to by wedding vendors and be catered to in housing and employment, or those who refuse to cater to them will be demonized, vilified, and sued until they’re broke or out of business.
Today homosexuals belong to the most pampered, protected, favored, privileged demographic in all of America.
This may explain some of the dynamics in Pete Buttegieg’s run for the presidency. His resume is quite similar to Cory Booker’s, but Buttigieg is soaring in the polls while Booker is mired near the bottom. Folks are scratching their heads trying to figure out why.
Politico puts it this way: “The two presidential contenders boast some of the same credentials. So why is Mayor Pete getting all the attention?” Buttigieg in recent weeks has been the subject of fawning and even gushing profiles in Time magazine, New York Magazine, Vogue, and Politico, and his so-called “husband,” Chasten, was featured in a lengthy story in the Washington Post.
Booker’s supporters “seethe” (to use Politico’s word) over Buttigieg mania and attribute his rising profile to “the epitome of privilege” that Buttigieg possesses because of his race. They think “the Buttigieg bump would be impossible if he wasn’t a white man.”
This analysis is quite wrong. The “Buttigieg bump” would be impossible if he wasn’t a flamboyant homosexual. The blunt truth is that if Buttigieg wasn’t gay, nobody would even know who he is.
Politico admits as much when it quotes a state legislator who believes Buttigieg’s rise “is more about the historic nature of his campaign than anything else.”
“He would become the first openly gay person to become president of the United States. That’s big, especially in this era,” the lawmaker went on.
Booker, a former mayor of Newark, is one of only three black Americans in the U.S. Senate, played football at Stanford, heroically rescued a neighbor from her burning home, and is now dating actress Rosario Dawson - perhaps in an effort to tamp down the long-rumored suspicion that he is a closeted homosexual. If so, he may come to regret that decision after seeing what Buttigieg’s no-holds-barred embrace of gayhood has meant to his electoral prospects.
Homosexuality was once rightly known as “the love that dare not speak its name.” Those days are long gone. Now it is not a career-killer but a resume enhancer. Due to the decaying morals of the Republic, we have now made it possible for a man to boldly sin his way right into the White House.
