The New Yorker expresses the left’s hatred of Middle America

chickfilaprotestby Ex-Leftist

4/16/2018

 

This writer once had an English Composition professor who was an avowed leftist that filled the ears of her students with leftist diatribes whether they wanted to hear them or not. She hated everything establishment, capitalist, white, and Christian. She had a subscription to the New Yorker and could sometimes be seen walking the halls with a copy in her hand, atop her grading work.

That really says something, and it’s no wonder.

The New Yorker’s Dan Piepenbring has kindly illustrated the magazine’s smug dislike for Middle America in an article bemoaning the establishment of Chik-fil-A restaurants in New York City due to the chain’s traditional American Christian values titled, “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City.”

New York has taken to Chick-fil-A. One of the Manhattan locations estimates that it sells a sandwich every six seconds, and the company has announced plans to open as many as a dozen more storefronts in the city. And yet the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays. Its C.E.O., Dan Cathy, has been accused of bigotry for using the company’s charitable wing to fund anti-gay causes, including groups that oppose same-sex marriage. “We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” he once said, “when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ” The company has since reaffirmed its intention to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. When the first stand-alone New York location opened, in 2015, a throng of protesters appeared. When a location opened in a Queens mall, in 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a boycott. No such controversy greeted the opening of this newest outpost. Chick-fil-A’s success here is a marketing coup. Its expansion raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.

I noticed that word—community—scattered everywhere in the Fulton Street restaurant. A shelf of children’s books bears a plaque testifying to “our love for this local community.” The tables are made of reclaimed wood, which creates, according to a Chick-fil-A press release, “an inviting space to build community.” A blackboard with the header “Our Community” displays a chalk drawing of the city skyline. Outside, you can glimpse an earlier iteration of that skyline on the building’s façade, which, with two tall, imperious rectangles jutting out, “gives a subtle impression of the Twin Towers.”

This emphasis on community, especially in the misguided nod to 9/11, suggests an ulterior motive. The restaurant’s corporate purpose still begins with the words “to glorify God,” and that proselytism thrums below the surface of the Fulton Street restaurant, which has the ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch. David Farmer, Chick-fil-A’s vice-president of restaurant experience, told BuzzFeed that he strives for a “pit crew efficiency, but where you feel like you just got hugged in the process.” That contradiction, industrial but claustral, is at the heart of the new restaurant—and of Chick-fil-A’s entire brand. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Cows.

Piepenbring clearly has a very skewed mindset: He concedes that the values of the chain are traditional American religious ones but in spite of this refers to them as if they were infiltrators into an American city. He actually has it backward: New Leftist secularist views like his are the real creepy infiltrators into America.

This guy desperately needs to get out more.

Suffice it to say, he’d never refer to a kosher or halal chain establishing itself in NYC as “creepy infiltrators” as if they were armed invaders from space, nor would he write an article lamenting their arrival, in spite of that both faiths teachings are not homosexual sex-friendly which proves that the outrage Piepenbring expresses against so-called “anti-gay” causes that Chik-fil-A donates to is hollow. The gay issue is merely a pretext to afford more ammunition for which to attack a restaurant which openly declares its Christianity.

That open declaration of faith is the real issue.

In the end, what Piepenbring is doing is saying we don’t want your kind here, the very attitude which Middle America is told to shun among its own by the very same people such as Piebenbring who practice the opposite of what they selectively preach to others.

The American public is repeatedly cautioned against religious bigotry, frequently accompanied by references to the holocaust and slogans of “NEVER AGAIN,” except when it comes to Christian-bashing. Then it’s open season.

Underlying all of this is that these people fear the popularity of such as Chik-fil-A will mean a resurgence of popularity in the Christian faith. They don’t attack kosher or halal restaurants in part because Jews and Muslims are a small portion of the US population and thus don’t pose an ideological threat to institutional progressive domination, so ultimately the motive for attacking Chik-fil-A is about influence and power. They cringe at the opening of a Christian restaurant similarly to how they cringe whenever a popular Christian movie is released. They do not want a resurgence of Christian belief.

That the people of New York have taken to Chik-fil-A scares the living shit out of people like Dan Piepenbring.

These people want to beat Christians to the social fringes where if they can’t be gotten completely rid of, at least looked at as backward animals to legitimize forcing them into closeted spaces for eternity where they can sit without a voice.