World-renowned moral philosopher and conservative commentator Dennis Prager, has published an insightful commentary on the recent decision by Air Canada to change the way its staff will address its passengers.  He reports the news this way:

“Air Canada announced last week that it will no longer use the phrase “ladies and gentlemen” on board its flights. The policy is part of a “commitment to respect sexual identity, diversity, and inclusion,” the company said in an internal memo.”

“Instead of the gender-specific “ladies and gentlemen” (and “mesdames et messieurs” — all announcements on Air Canada are in English and French), flight attendants are to address passengers as “everybody” and “tout le monde.”

Dennis emphasizes that this change accommodates the preference of a very small portion of its client base – people who claim no gender:

“Everyone knows that had there been a vote among Air Canada passengers — say, all those enrolled in the airline’s frequent flier program — even liberal Canadians would have voted to retain “ladies and gentlemen.” Even the infinitesimally small number of Canadians who are transgender would almost all vote to retain “ladies and gentlemen.” Remember, transgender individuals strongly identify as male or female — they simply reject their biological sexual identity. So, who, exactly, is Air Canada making more comfortable? Not the 99-plus percent of Canadians who identify with their biological sex, and not the fraction of a percent of Canadians who are transgender.”

“They are allegedly making the most rare of all human beings comfortable: those with no sexual identity. And not even every member of that group would vote to have Air Canada drop “ladies and gentlemen.” I recently interviewed one such individual on my radio show, Professor Camille Paglia, one of the major thinkers of our time. She told me she identifies as neither female nor male but she thinks society is going mad in its rush to obliterate male and female.”

Why would a major corporation completely overhaul the manner in which it addresses its clients, to favor such a small portion of those clients – and risk offending the vast majority of the rest? Why jeopardize its profitability? Dennis speculates it has something to do with feel-good morality, and also appeasement to subversive political forces:

“To feel good about itself and buy goodwill with some of the most powerful social forces in the English-speaking world: LGBTQ activist groups. Big-business leftism — like Citibank’s recent video featuring the hurt and angry reactions of young girls (around ages 10 to 13) when told women are “paid less than men” for the same work — can best be described as moral onanism.”

I think the two go hand-in-hand. People who have nothing to do with traditional religion, base their “morality” on feeling good as opposed to doing good. Give them a “just cause,” and they will adopt it with the zealotry of a religious fanatic – even if it is against their own interests. They simply have no moral backbone. Unfortunately, many corporate directors are like this, and so are easy prey for the peddlers of “just causes.”

However, it is the peddlers of these causes that I think are the main culprits of this destructive disruption. Does that include the LGBTQ activist groups that Dennis mentions? Sure, in a way. No doubt there are members among them who are intolerant of opposing views on gender and sex, and seek to impose their worldview on everyone.

But why would they want to see companies falter and fail in the process? I think there has to be an anti-business agenda behind their extremist “gender activism.” If they were pro-business/ pro-free enterprise/ pro-corporations, then they would promote their cause through channels that preserve the institution and benefit themselves. For example, they could start their own “no gender airline.”

So if their real objective is to cripple existing businesses, then we have to attribute a more sinister motive to their activism, than simply promoting the “no gender” belief system. We have to conclude that it is the global anti-free enterprise/ anti-capitalism/ anti-western forces that are behind this alleged “just cause.” The socialists are the people who would benefit most by the failure of our economic system, because they would seize that opportunity to impose their own.

I am sure that most of the atheist corporate directors, activist politicians, and “social justice warriors” think they are simply promoting “diversity and inclusion” when they enact policies like this one by Air Canada. Tragically, they do not realize they are simply cannon fodder in the war being launched by socialists against us.