Identity Politics (IP) is a product of Postmodernism, the corrupted thinking that gave us Political Correctness (PC). This 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 Postmodernist Left has never been very keen on free speech. It prefers that people toe the party line.
IP ‘identifies’ a hierarchy in society, which it defines as ‘relative privilege’. It suggests that there is such a thing as ‘the patriarchy’, which apportions ‘privilege’ to individuals according to their identities — white men, black women, and so on. It proposes to counter this by establishing a hierarchy based on ‘oppression’. It says 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.
Now in fact, while there are patriarchal cultures, notably Islam, European culture has never been patriarchal. It was instead a culture within which there were two distinct spheres of influence. These were, around family and home, and outside this. In the former, women were dominant and in the latter, men were. This is of course, the ‘two group’ system which humans were evolved to live by and which remains in practice in most of the world.
However, in the West, over the last two centuries, Western women have decided that they do not wish to continue this and so have invaded the formerly males spaces of work, the military and so on. These spaces, being constructed by men were naturally masculine and it is this that Postmodernists and identitarians have ‘identified’ as ‘the patriarchy’.
In fact, men in the West have bent over backwards to accommodate women in this, in manners which men in other cultures rightly consider laughable. But that gained them no thanks or credit at all.
An inverted system of status
IP constructs 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’.
Nobody in the West is ‘oppressed’. Everyone has equal rights under the law. But truth never stopped a Leftist in the past, and it will not stop them now.
There is no ‘social injustice’; social differences are the natural result of a competitive society
Identity Politics is a crude attempt to redress what it sees as ‘social injustice’ but which is in fact the natural result of a competitive, meritocratic society: some people have more money than others. Note: they all have the same rights, but some are richer than others.
If the patriarchy existed, then its opposite would be matriarchy. This is not a weird system of ‘identities’ and artificial status. A matriarchy is a system whereby women have full control over their own lives and bodies, are not controlled or regulated by men, 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. Matriarchies exist all over the world; they are the ‘Home’ groups that we have discussed before.
These true matriarchies are the societies of women, sharing the responsibilities of managing the home space and feeding, raising, and educating the children. All such matriarchies exist in tandem with a male society, which deals with the outward affairs of the group. Initially this was hunting but it evolved into business and politics. Decisions that affect the whole tribe, of both Home and Away groups, are made by the matriarchs and patriarchs together.
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 are.
We saw a less severe, but similar example last week, when tennis player Serena Williams, a black woman, insulted and harangued the match Umpire after he caught her cheating. Within IP and those infected by its doctrine, it is unacceptable for a white man ever to chastise and find fault with a black woman, because black women are at the top of the IP hierarchy and white men are at the bottom, the modern Helots. (and this, by the way, despite the fact that Williams is a multi-millionaire; some oppression!)
Intersections and travesties.
IP then expands to a network of entirely spurious ‘intersections’ in which groups are subdivided and again graded according to the ‘oppression’ they allegedly suffer. In ‘intersectionality’ these ‘oppressions’ are cumulative. 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 Postmodernist 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 and Postmodernism.
Why? Because Postmodernism, and in consequence IP, 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 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.
At the same time, Capitalism opened itself up to worker ownership through the Stock Markets. Almost all non-governmental pension and Life Assurance schemes are dependent on holding Stock, that is, ownership of companies, and so are owners of the means of production, in Marxist terms. But on whose behalf are those funds managed? Largely, they provide pensions for working people and assist them to buy homes.
That presented a problem after World War 2, especially after the wholesale slaughter and abuse of human rights that characterised Communist regimes came fully to light.
I remember asking a Communist — actually a member of the even more extremist Socialist Workers’ Party — how he could resolve the act that British working people were in fact directly exploiting workers in developing countries, where the pension funds the former relied on were heavily invested. Hi reply? ‘It is impossible for a worker to oppress another worker.’
Oh really? Today, that is expressed like this: ‘It is impossible for a black man to be racist’. Both are clearly untrue but the truth is insupportable to Communism.
To cure this,k a group of French academic Communists, led by Jacques Derrida, invented academic Postmodernism. Now Postmodernism had been around for a while in the Arts — but it had never before had a political application. Now it did.
Thanks to Postmodernism, we now had myriad classes of ‘oppressed’ and only, in the end, one ‘oppressor’. The universal ‘oppressed’ was the black woman, especially if she were also lesbian or trans; and the ‘universal’ oppressor was white men.
Always oppressed, never the oppressor.
Hence ‘Identity Politics’, which is the political form of Postmodernism, replaced 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 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.
The flaws of Identity Politics already existed within Marxist 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 feminism claims 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 feminists 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 heterosexual males. And their end purpose? To oppress white middle class heterosexual males, especially if they be so ‘tone deaf’ as to enjoy good health and, heaven forfend, dare to express an opinion.
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 land-grabs 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 women, raping women, molesting women, throwing acid in faces of women, sex-grooming children of both sexes, bombing, kidnapping and generally behaving in a way that no white man would get away with.
And murdering gays? IP has no comment.
Same applies to Islam 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 their abuse — 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.
As if that were not absurd enough — and it really really should be — consider this: ‘transgender women’ have almost as high an oppression status as black lesbians. But, if you’ve been paying attention to these pages, you’ll know that most visible transwomen in the West are not transsexual are all but are instead autogynephilic transvestites. That is, they are heterosexual men with a fetish for appearing to be women.
These men commit crimes just as frequently as other men and they commit the same kinds of crime. But they have been successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of ignorant politicians sufficiently that they are now routinely incarcerated in women’s prisons in the UK. So, on 6 September 2018, a story appeared in reliable UK media sources revealing that:
‘the prison service has apologised after a transgender inmate, charged with raping a woman, sexually assaulted four fellow inmates just days after being remanded into an all female jail.
‘Convicted paedophile Karen White, who was born Stephen Wood, was undergoing gender reassignment, but had not undergone full surgery, when she was accused of repeatedly raping a woman in 2016.
‘The 52-year-old, who had been previously been jailed in 2001 for a sex attack on a child, told the authorities she identified as a woman and was remanded into HMP New Hall near Wakefield’ The Daily Telegraph
Where have been the storms of indignant protest about this from the Identitarian Left? Nowhere. How can that be? Well it could not be otherwise. Wood, as a ‘transgender woman’ (actually a fetishistic transvestite) has higher oppression status than mere heterosexual white women, who are, of course, second only to heterosexual white men in their absolute lack of status or protection. This was a convicted child-abuser who was arrested for repeated rape and then proceeded to rape a further four women while in prison on remand — yet is Identity Politics status means he is completely untouchable. No Politically-Correct Indentitarian could possibly condemn Wood. After all, it was only white women he assaulted.
So at the end of the day, Identity Politics gives succour to men who rape women; men who abuse children; men who steal and kill. There is no more vile or reprehensible a political philosophy than this; it has taken moral relativism to the extent that there are no absolute morals and the rightness or wrongness of any act is entirely dependent on who perpetrated it and what level of Oppression Status he or she had, versus his or her victim.
We need to be rid of this appalling travesty.