Progressives are never satisfied.
In the 19th century, it was common knowledge in the South that there was a class of people who live back East who are “fond of novelties” which they conflate with “progress.” These people are anti-traditional in bent. They embrace change for the sake of change, NOT because change is better. It is also not enough for them to embrace change. EVERYONE must be forced to embrace the fad of the moment … whatever it is, like the thousands of new pronouns and genders which they made up over the past decade.
This was true before the Jews arrived en masse here. Southerners looked ahead with a nervous eye to the distant future beyond the contemporary debate over slavery. They saw slavery as only the “incident” or “occasion” of secession. There would doubtlessly be new cultural issues which would arise which the same agitators would use to continue to polarize and divide the country. As soon as the slavery issue was settled, a new -ism would emerge to take its place. Slavery would be the first to go. White supremacy would be the next target. This would be followed by an assault on patriarchy and then the family and then Christianity and finally government and our common culture would be shredded and would collapse into anarchy. Utopia would only finally be achieved when all the bonds that hold the social fabric together have been severed and lie in ruins and the sovereign individual had been “liberated” from all forms of “oppression.” Then we would be invited “to sing Fraternity, &c., over it, and to rejoice in the new remarkable era of human progress we have arrived at. It would be the dawn of a new progressive era.
You know, it is always something with these people. It really is a slippery slope. As soon as they got gay marriage, they moved on to “trans.” As soon as they started toppling Confederate monuments, they moved on to toppling all historical monuments. As soon as they started “punching Nazis,” they moved on to criminalizing the Patriot movement. As soon as they started censoring the “far right,” they moved on to deplatforming the president of the United States. The same busybody and control freak impulse which animates spying on your text messages and deplatforming you from the internet and hounding people into unemployment and now forced vaccinations will also meddle with your diet. They will also condemn you as “fascism” and “authoritarianism” – a powerless private citizen who is simply sharing your thoughts on the issues on the internet – while trying to micromanage every aspect of your life.
“In early July, Spain’s minister of consumer affairs, Alberto Garzón, posted a short video on Twitter urging Spaniards to decrease their meat consumption. From a political communication perspective, it was flawless. He listed the many ways large-scale meat production and consumption harm humans, the environment, and animals, all backed by peer-reviewed science. He focused on reducing meat intake, not eliminating it—he praised nonindustrial livestock systems and family barbecues. He acknowledged that changing diets is hard for those without access to cheap, accessible, and diverse food choices. He explained that the government would launch food education campaigns and implement regulations to incentivize more sustainable diets. He even added a hashtag: #MenosCarneMasVida (Less Meat More Life).
Spanish politics exploded. While Garzón’s nuanced, well-researched message received some support (the number of Spaniards who claim to want to reduce their meat consumption is rising), several fellow politicians turned to juvenile trolling. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, of Spain’s socialist party, gushed about his love of the chuletón steak to a press conference, and Teodoro García Egea of the right-wing People’s Party tweeted out a picture of a grill packed with slabs of meat with the caption, “To your health.”
The affair brilliantly displayed the fraught politics of dietary change. The average Western diet—prevalent in Spain, just as it is in the United States and the United Kingdom—is high in meat, fat, and sugar, its production and consumption an environmental and public health disaster. This has been true for decades. But in the past few years, a growing chorus of voices have begun to call for major dietary changes in the interest of human and planetary health. The EAT-Lancet report published in February 2019 called for a global shift to a primarily plant-based diet if we are to keep agricultural production within planetary limits. The problem, however, is that actually changing what people eat is extremely difficult. Who should drive this change: individuals, governments, or corporations? Can a balance be struck between consumer freedom and regulation? And how can rational policymaking be squared with food’s significant cultural, nationalist, and personal meaning? …”
I’m bullish on forced vaccinations and vegan totalitarianism.
To riff off a phrase from Adam Serwer, the exercising power over you and not respecting your rights is the point. These people are simply incapable of leaving you alone and minding their own business.