Identity Politics (IP) is a development of the thinking that gave us Political Correctness, which operates by denying an opponent the language needed to present a case, and thus preventing that person from doing so. It is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, because it is directly contradictory to free speech. You cannot speak freely if the language you must use has been censored so that you cannot express yourself. However, the Regressive Left has never been very keen on free speech. It prefers that people toe the party line.
IP ‘identifies’ a hierarchy of privilege in the patriarchy. It proposes to counter this by saying that those who are awarded most patriarchal privilege should not be allowed to speak about matters that affect the less privileged. This applies even if the person speaking is a recognised expert quoting the best science.
IP then follows up by constructing an inverted system of status such that those who ‘identify’ as being in an ‘oppressed group’ are regarded as being higher in status than those who are not. The more oppressed the group you ‘identify’ as being in is deemed to be, the more authority you have. This we might call a ‘status of oppression’.
Well, there is a system of status in the patriarchy. In the West and indeed most of the world, this posits that men are above women, high status men are above low status ones and so on. White men have higher status, under this, than black men, while Asian men are somewhere in between. It is a nasty, controlling, anti-human social order. However, it has one thing in its favour: it actually exists. It can be recorded and observed like any other natural phenomenon. It may not be desirable, but then, neither is bubonic plague and nobody argues that because the latter is not very nice, it doesn’t exist.
The whole of human history, since it was first written, has been determined by the patriarchy and its systems of mind-control, which are mainly its religions, supplemented, in the last few centuries, by the media. And if mind-control doesn’t work, the patriarchy has the military power to crush dissent — which it does regularly. All of this is obvious and easily demonstrated.
Identity Politics is a crude attempt to redress this, but it is crassly constructed and is itself a tool of the patriarchy. In the first place, the opposite of the patriarchy — to which we should surely look if we wish to seek an alternative — is a matriarchy. This is not a weird system of ‘identities’ and artificial status. A matriarchy is not the patriarchy inverted, but a system whereby women have full control over their own lives and bodies, are not controlled or regulated by men or patriarchal agencies like churches, and have at least as much say in governing the group as men. It is an egalitarian system and, where status is conferred, this is on the basis of age, experience and knowledge. Status in the patriarchy it is always awarded as a result of violence and exploitation of others.
Identity Politics is a travesty, in which some groups are permitted to oppress other groups because the latter are judged to be less oppressed. Thus, suddenly, women’s right to protection from male rapists is to be done away with, if said male rapist is in a group that IP claims is more oppressed than they.
Intersections and travesties.
This then expands to a network of entirely spurious ‘intersections’ in which groups are subdivided and again graded according to the ‘oppression’ they allegedly suffer. So a gay black man is more oppressed than a gay white man because he is oppressed once for being gay and again for being black, whereas the white gay man is only oppressed the once.
The thing about the best travesties of the truth is that they are believable. If you read the Bible, about the only thing you can conclude is that it is complete fiction. Identity Politics is more like the ‘Intelligent Design’ counter to Darwinian Evolution. Superficially, it looks plausible; its only when you dig into it that it becomes clear what a whopper it is.
It looks great, probably because it was invented by philosophers and academics in schools of political theory whose job it is to make their prattling sound plausible. There is only one counter to this and that is to use science; but wait a bit, just as Intelligent Design hides away from science, so does Identity Politics.
Why? Because it has no sound basis in fact. It is a political construct and not a particularly inventive one either, at least if you happen to be familiar with the Communist Manifesto.
The Communist Manifesto divides society into two main groups, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and holds that in all instances the rights of the latter are abused by the former. This is the principal architecture of socialist class politics, which essentially holds that society is made up of an oppressed Working Class (the proletariat)which is fed on by a managerial Middle Class (the bourgeoisie)who in turn support the parasitic Upper Class (the owners of the means of production.)
The problem was that with the fall of Communism these class distinctions began to look threadbare. The developed world, through the system of ‘globalisation’, moved manufacturing jobs into the developing world, notably Asia, where labour rates were cheaper.
This was a classic piece of Capitalism, predicted by Marx, that left the West with no proletariat to speak of. It became a region principally of the managerial Middle Class, or the bourgeoisie, to use the Communist word. The whole of the developed world became an oppressor of the Third World. This had been so for centuries, but now it became embarrassingly obvious.
Always oppressed, never the oppressor.
Hence ‘Identity Politics’ need to replace the one-size-fits-all Proletariat — always oppressed, never the oppressor — with myriad tailor-made ‘identities’, related to each other by how and who they oppressed or were oppressed by. It would not do for the people behind this to throw their hands up in the air and admit that they were each as bad as the other, exploiting children in Chinese sweatshops.
Identity Politics is the sop, the crutch, the mechanism — albeit spurious — that lets them shout ‘But I’m oppressed too! What about me?’ Which conveniently left the patriarchy free to go on exploiting children in Chinese sweatshops, making everything from shirts to mobile phones to sell to the inventors of ‘Identity Politics’ at prices that were dependent on the starving kids’ almost-free labour.
So while we in the West absolutely do oppress the Asian proletariat, we are not meant to waste time worrying about that. Instead we are supposed to subscribe to a system of social identification that guarantees conflict and schism.
Identity Politics is the tool by which the patriarchy ensures that people are too busy arguing with each other about who is more oppressed than whom to realise that the patriarchy has gone beast mode and is determined to destroy everything, including the planet.
Identity Politics is a bourgeois bitching platform.
It is, essentially, the bourgeoisie’s own, internal bitching platform; and that is all it ever will be. It is resolutely determined to ignore the real problems caused by globalisation and the patriarchy.
The flaws of Identity Politics existed within Class Politics. A member of the bourgeoisie was always an oppressor and a member of the proletariat always oppressed. So how did women fit in? Was a bourgeoise woman oppressed — as she is, by the patriarchy — or an oppressor — as Class Politics says she must be, as a member of the oppressing class?
This is unworkable and feminist politics quickly identified the problem. However, at the same time as Second Wave feminism was gaining traction, so were a number of other pressure groups. They were concerned with oppression due to skin colour, to sexual orientation, to gender expression and so on. Identity Politics is an attempt to cobble together a ‘theory of everything’ that will unite all ‘oppressed people’ — essentially, all those who are not white middle class males..
But because of this interlinking — the ‘intersectionality’ mentioned before — Identity Politics is fatally compromised. (It is not the only way it is.) This is because for all this to work a hierarchy of oppression must exist. Straight white men are the most oppressive, so they have no rights. But is that because they are men or because they are white? If it’s because they are white, then where does that place straight white women? You guessed it, they are oppressors too. They are oppressed because they are women — by straight white men — but they oppress others because they are white.
Islam — the motherlode of bad ideas.
Now consider the thorny question of Islam. Islam is a religion and a set of ideas. It is not a ‘race’. But it has acquired race status of ‘coloured’ under IP. This idiocy is principally a USican delusion, and the US is riven by the unresolved ‘race’ issues of slavery, the Civil War, Segregation, Jim Crow and others, not to mention genocide and a land-grab of massive proportions. So ‘coloured’ is the most powerful ‘hot-button’ oppressed ‘identity’ there is. Islam basks in this.
When Muslim men murder women for having sex, this is overlooked. Islam gets protected status because it’s ‘coloured’. So whatever a Muslim man does, more or less, is OK. It can’t be criticised because it has ‘coloured’ status. This despite the fact that this is a man killing, raping, molesting, throwing acid in faces, bombing and generally behaving in a way that no white man would get away with.
And murdering gays? IP has no comment.
Same applies to murdering gays. Nobody says a word, because Islam is coloured and therefore untouchable. So what if it is hideous, dangerous, misogynistic and homophobic — in other words, behaves monstrously towards ‘identities’ that IP claims to protect? It’s coloured so it can’t be challenged.
And it doesn’t end there. In fact it just gets going. Muslims are permitted, because ‘it’s their culture’, to grope and assault European women. The authorities actually cover their crimes up. Why? Because they don’t want to ‘promote racial tension’ despite the fact that Islam is not a race and never was. It’s just a religion.
So why are we permitting Muslims to abuse European women? Because Islam is ‘of colour’ and European women are white. White women need not look to the authorities to protect them as they go about their legitimate business, dressed perfectly appropriately. The authorities would rather they ‘complied’ with Muslim mores in order not to ‘offend’ Muslim men. They collude with Muslims in raping and terrorising women. And Identity Politics claims to stand for women as an oppressed group? Don’t make me laugh. It aids and abets the patriarchy’s suppression of them — as long as the abusers are not ‘white’.
Islam is ‘coloured’ so blameless.
Because Islam is ‘coloured’ under IP, it has more oppressed status than white women. So it’s just too damn bad if your daughter gets gang-raped by a bunch of men who happen to be Muslim. Tough. Better tell her to wear a burkha. After all, insulting a man whose religion is ‘of colour’ — by exposing him to the horrific sight of a woman’s hair, for example — is far worse than rape. One cannot expect a Muslim not to rape, if he is exposed to women wearing skirts that show their legs. It’s ‘culture’ and so it’s quite all right.
Instead, what we must do is set aside decades of women’s liberation so that men don’t have to control themselves. But these men are not rapists and molesters because of some fault in their ‘race’. They are so because they choose to adhere to a disgusting, misogynistic, violent, women-controlling death cult.
‘Identity Politics’ is succour for rape.
There is nothing innate about Islam; it’s not even a disease. It’s just a collection of horrible ideas that should have been thrown out centuries ago. Islam’s attitudes to women, sex and homosexuality are deeply offensive and should not be tolerated anywhere. Muslims — real ones, in the streets and town centres of Europe — should be made to explain, in simple language, why it is all right for them to kill homosexuals and rape and molest women.
A white man who did what these people have done would be imprisoned. He would carry a ‘sexual offender’ badge the rest of his days — just as rapists and molesters should. But then he doesn’t have the ‘oppression status’ that IP affords a Muslim rapist, because he’s white. So at the end of the day, Identity Politics serves the patriarchy very well.
It gives succour to men who rape women.