One of the most astonishing things about getting older is realizing that all of the cultural artifacts of my youth that most pushed leftism have now become “regressive.”

The TV show “Friends” was huge when I was in high school and college. As far as I know, Friends was the first television show to portray a same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and what amounted to a cucked husband accepting that his wife left him for a woman, took his child, but “forgave” them and remained social friends his ex-wife’s girlfriend and his ex-wife’s son’s mother.

The entire show Friends was all about straight people being good “allies” for LGBT people. But now, Friends is denounced as “homophobic.” This was in the 1990s when, frankly, homosexuality was barely tolerated by anyone outside of Hollywood, and TV shows like Friends were a major part of the change.

Now they have come for … Mrs. Doubtfire. No, Mrs. Doubtfire had nothing to do with transgenderism. It had to do with drag. The famous scene of Robin Williams being kitted out by an actual gay drag queen was probably the first openly gay character in a mainstream movie I saw.

But now, Mrs. Doubtfire is transphobic.

https://mynorthwest.com/1652293/seattle-progressives-mrs-doubtfire/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Mike Enoch and the TDS guys make a good point in a recent podcast. The Republicans – and some Democrats – today that believe in citizenship, in the idea that the USA has borders and there is a distinction between citizens and foreigners, will one day, possibly quite soon, be considered far-right-neo-nazi-KKK racists.

Joe Biden is already a racist for not supporting busing back in the 1970s.

20 years ago the book Empire by post-Marxists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, called “the Communist Manifesto of the 21st Century,” proposed a radical idea: all national borders should be abolished, along with any distinctions of people other than class. In what has become an amazing convergence of the post-Marxist left and the neo-liberal right, far-leftists like Hardt and Negri were promoting the exact same idea that the Wall Street Journal editorial page was a decade earlier, a Constitutional amendment declaring “there shall be open borders.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(Hardt_and_Negri_book)

One of the curious features of the original Communist movement was that it was hostile to private ownership of industry – actual factories and businesses that produced tangible goods and provided actual services. But the original Communists were not nearly as hostile to finance capital. Calling for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state” amounted to setting up nation-based Central Banks. While the actual workers would “own” the factories they worked in, the Money Masters were still ultimately be in charge, with their own institutions that were globally connected.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the Capitalists and the Communists had comparable goals, however unintuitive when one only considers the surface rhetoric.

Now what we are seeing in the 21st Century is an even more frantic push to destroy the biological basis on humanity itself. Wolves have packs, lions have prides – and humans have families and tribes.

The Sexual Revolution was all about inducing sterility, hence contraception and birth control, along with diverting the sex drive into sterile activities like prostitution, pornography and sex out of the context of actual relationships.

This Counter Currents article reminded me of a “scandal” from a couple of years ago. A women started a blog called “300 Sandwiches” where she chronicled her effort to “earn” a wedding ring by making her boyfriend one sandwich a day for a year.

It triggered internet wide outrage from feminists. Although it was clearly nothing more than one woman’s attempt to publicize her foodie blog – and get herself set up as a Martha Stewart-style celebrity chef, just the idea that a wife might made food for her husband was offensive.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/mums-group-backlash-over-whether-wives-should-make-their-husbands-lunches/news-story/b32d67e43cf47f7b470cb17b53adb3f4

This statement in the HuffPost screed was really quite revealing.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephanie-smith-300-sandwiches-engagement-ring_n_3990325

According to Schulte, “sandwiches are like kisses or hugs. Or sex.” We love a delicious sandwich, but sorry, dude, ham and cheese on rye is not an adequate replacement for an orgasm.

Husbands aren’t for love, they are merely orgasm-generating devices. Reading even the most hard core radfems one gets the impression that a relationship with men is acceptable – not as preferable as lesbianism, but acceptable – only if it is done for orgasms, not love, or companionship, or even to create and nurture a family.

Indeed, as garden-variety social conservatives have pointed out for years, families provide a necessary counter-point to the leviathan state.

This is confused on the neo-right, who mistake this impulse for “egalitarianism.” But anti-egalitarianism is perfectly compatible with the real issue: individualism. Instead of humans seeing themselves as social creatures, with a biologically based connection to parents, spouses, children and grandchildren, they must see themselves as individuals.

Their identity must be divorced from their biological relations and instead construct an identity around consumerism.

John Smith is no longer, John Smith, son of William Smith, husband of Mrs. Mary Smith and father of Jim, Sally, George, and Kate.

John Smith is instead “GamerNerd423” who identifies as non-binary and a consumer of Lizzo and whose favorite Netflix product is whatever.

That is how “GamerNerd423” relates to his fellow human. But of course the ruling class simply knows John Smith/GamerNerd423 as “435-423-5434.”

You know, a worker drone in Sector G.

Steve Sailer has pointed out how much of the Transgender movement is led by high IQ, masculine men who all of a sudden one day, often after stereotypical masculine achievements in athletics or science, start identifying as women and demand access to the women’s locker room. They often also identify as “lesbians” and expect women to have “lesbian” sex with their ladypenises in order to “Smash the Cotton Ceiling.”

RadFem lesbians are rightly concerned about this, but it was their own assault on language, sex, and patriarchy that set the stage for this in the first place.

Eventually everyone will be required to wear an androgynous uniform, with standardized haircuts (you can express your individuality by dying your hair unusual colors) and gender neutral identification handles (what used to be called “names” in the pre-woke era.)

None of this is new, of course, Huxley predicted it all in Brave New World including the artificial wombs, the legal drugs and casual sex, and the very anti-egalitarian future divided into classes of Alphas, Betas, and Deltas.

Today’s cutting edge will be hopelessly retrograde in the very near future.

They call themselves “progressives” but the question is what are they “progressing” toward? One world, no distinctions between the great vast majority of people, stripped of their family identity, cultures and even sexes, Pacified by sterile orgasms and legal narcotics, spending 10 hours a day in an Amazon warehouse doing whatever tasks the robots can’t do yet.

That will be most of humanity. As we see now, the wealthy will live much as they do now. The wealthiest men will have multiple wives and multiple children, eating high quality organic food and their children – Huxley’s Alphas – will be the next generation of managers and staff the ruling class.

Because all of this transgenderism, sterility, pornography, impersonal orgasms, lack of family and identity, lack of even human connections and bonding – that’s only for the proles, not the people that matter.