Intersectionality and anti-Semitism
The author of this article in New York magazine is either clueless or disingenuous when he asks, “Why Won’t Women’s March Leaders Denounce Louis Farrakhan’s Anti-Semitism?” (the title of his piece).
The author can’t quite figure it out. But it’s rather easy if you’ve been paying attention at any time in about the last 50 years or so. The left is quite uniformly either actively anti-Semitic or passively so, and that even includes many Jews (almost entirely secular Jews) who are very much part of the left itself.
But Farrakhan is also the beneficiary of a concept that has recently become very hot on the left, and that’s something called intersectionality. If you haven’t heard the word before, it’s time to get familiar with it. Google it and you’ll find no end of articles about it, but the summary version is that it divides society into a series of groups based on a discrimination/oppression hierarchy, and then posits that one’s membership in each group determines the depth of one’s claim to victimhood as well as one’s right to speak about anything connected to that group.
Here’s how it’s defined by the left, when it began in the late 80s as a way for feminists to differentiate the experience of black women from white women:
The movement led by women of color disputed the idea, common to earlier feminist movements, that women were a homogeneous category essentially sharing the same life experiences. This argument stemmed from the realization that white middle-class women did not serve as an accurate representation of the feminist movement as a whole. Recognizing that the forms of oppression experienced by white middle-class women were different from those experienced by black, poor, or disabled women, feminists sought to understand the ways in which gender, race, and class combined to “determine the female destiny”.
Leslie McCall argues that the introduction of the intersectionality theory was vital to sociology, claiming that before its development there was little research that specifically addressed the experiences of people who are subjected to multiple forms of subordination within society.
The basis of the concept is in leftist thought, and is grounded in the left’s generalizations about group categories and a leftist postmodernist mindset that sees society almost solely in terms of power and oppression, with the oppressed groups as the only ones with legitimacy. In a way, it is an attempt by the left to act out “the first shall be last”—without its Christian associations and values, of course, and with “first” and “last” defined as the left wants to define them.
Individuals are no longer important, except as defined by their interlocking and sometimes-overlapping membership in various oppressed and/or oppressor groups.
Various people (see this by David French, for example) have called intersectionality a substitute for religion in the non-religious, and so my use of a Biblical phrase makes sense if you buy French’s analogy:
The [intersectionality] faith is fierce. Intolerance in the name of tolerance is the norm. Debate and dialogue are artifacts of scorned “respectability politics.” I’m reminded of the worst sorts of fundamentalist Christian sects, the kind that claim to take the Bible literally yet live as if mercy is alien to Scripture and that commands to “love your enemies” or “bless those who persecute you” somehow fell off the page. In the church of intersectionality, grace is nowhere to be found.
However, I don’t see intersectionality as a religion any more than any other theory on the left is a religion. What intersectionality (and other canons of the left) shares with religion is the possibility of fanaticism and intolerance within a belief system, and that is actually what French is describing in his analogy rather than religion itself.
I wrote this post so far before reading an article by Ben Shapiro that makes much the same point I’m making about intersectionality and the Woman’s March leaders (as well as other Democrats) who refuse to denounce Farrakhan, which is that intersectionality demands that Farrakhan’s blackness trumps any need to worry about his anti-Semitism. This would be true even if the left weren’t itself anti-Semitic, so the left’s failure to denounce is actually multiply-determined.
We must most exquisitly divide all groups to establish a hierarchy of “goodness” for them.
Nothing new here. Keep in mind that Marx was big on victims, the proletariat, and victimizers, the capitalists.
Ray:
The buzzword is relatively new, though, at least its popularity is. It gives leftists another handy tool to feed to people in the process of denouncing those they don’t like, and shouting down those who don’t have the supposed creds to speak on a topic.
Well, the hierarchy appears to be:
muslim
LBGTQXYXOTHER
women of color
women
men of color
white men
‘Why Won’t Women’s March Leaders Denounce Louis Farrakhan’s Anti-Semitism’
That headline demands the ‘Fox Butterfield Is That You?’ treatment.
I miss James Taranto’s Best Of The Web feature.
When I see or hear “intersectionality,” I roll my eyes. It’s just one more hoop progs have made for unbelievers to jump through, or as Neo has said, one more club for progs to use in beating down those who don’t agree with them. Just more word play nonsense from the Arts and Humanities Tribe, or more specifically from the social “sciences.” Social science is to science as Wonder Bread is to French bread.
Regarding victim groups, I find it absurd that belonging to a given victim group subsequently absolves one from a charge of bigotry/racism/what have you. Think of poor southern whites- especially from 50-150 years ago. No absolving for them, nor for Farrakhan.
The [intersectionality] faith is fierce. Intolerance in the name of tolerance is the norm.
Tom Lehrer’s comment is just as valid today as it was a half century ago: “I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that.” (Patter before he performed his song, “National Brotherhood Week.” He pointed out that Malcolm X was killed during National Brotherhood Week,”which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is.” )
Speaking of Malcolm X reminds us that Louis Farrakhan had some things to say about Malcolm X.
Intersectionality, schmintersectionality.
I will step out on a limb and suggest a vast majority could care less about “intersectionality” and far more about paychecks, the kids and grandkids, making the rent/mortgage on time, and putting gas in the tank. Intersectionality may make hearts pitter patter in academic and media circles, but not so much in Peoria.
This is how the intersectionality folks got Trump.
parker:
But a lot of young people care, deeply. They will either continue in that vein as they get older, and teach it to new generations, or they will change their minds. But right now a lot of college age people vote and they can change the results of elections.
“Why does the Leftist alliance not denounce members of the Leftist alliance….”
It’s kind of a rather stupid question in the meta verse. Because it is like saying “why don’t you shoot your allies and family members”.
Because.
This is why the term “alliance” is far more accurate a fit for the Left than ideology, political party, or even religion used these days.
Gringo Says:
March 8th, 2018 at 4:48 pm
I wrote many years ago, that Nation of Islam killed Malcom X. He converted out of Islam after all. I doubt many at the time had the capability to do the research behind that little line.
It think I’ve heard the terminology once, but have no knowledge of it. But it seems like an obvious use of set theory.
Who is more oppressed, and therefore more worthy of special privileges and attention, women or blacks? That’s a tough one, but what about the intersection of the set of all women and the set of all blacks, i.e. black women? That’s a double win or a jackpot. Intersections leverage power politics.
I read an article (book?) by Bruce Bawer about 5 years ago dealing with intersectionality. He identified this as perhaps THE defining structure of current leftism. It has gone from a concept I basically agree with—that people with more types of oppression on their plate have a different and more difficult experience than those with fewer “intersections” of oppression—to a concept that I visualize as a blanket. The Big Ol’ Blanket O’ The Left. Read the articles, and the comments on the articles, of those who generate the Leftist philosophy and jargon, and you’ll see intersectionality woven into everything. It now underpins the catagorical refusal of those on the Left to allow the slightest bit of deviation from any Leftist position. Because all the threads of oppression intersect and form a blanket—you are not permitted to try and pull even one thread from the edge on any one issue. For instance, if you care about racism then you MUST care about climate change and transgender and Hillary and if you challenge any one of these, then you are refusing to acknowledge that all oppressions intersect. Maybe its more like a spider web than a blanket then, eh?
Indeed, a “blanket”, which—for the most “moral” of reasons—becomes an ideological straight-jacket, most useful for keeping people in ideological line….while targeting all those who “deserve” (who “ought”) to be targeted.
A “blanket”. (As in, “Oh what a tangled web we weave?”…?)
Speaking of tangled webs—and targeting those who “deserve” to be targeted for all the best and most moral of reasons!—Lee Smith painstakingly describes what happens when the “progressive”, “correct-thinking” intersectionality crowd gets into government and pervades the media (and of course, academia):
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256899/left-right-russiagate
And if one wishes to understand the ramifications of “intersectionality” and the bullying that it—necessarily—encourages, then the recent Bari Weiss “controversy” at the NYT is a very useful example.
This article describes this episode of “ethical” blood-lust (it is nothing less) and also brings attention to the fact that it is by no means a new phenomenon:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/the-sliming-of-bari-weiss/
In short: unless you hold—and EXPRESS—the “correct” views, then you will be eaten by the revolution…
Who wins top billing in the intersectionality sweepstakes?
We all know the answer to that one.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/03/08/the-strange-feminist-silence-on-islam/
the twilight zone society never hears of or sees,
let alone
mention the currency printing multidimensional
intersectionality media poopagandasts behind the GWOT,
and the Zionist terrorists entity, eh?
and a plant is “our” enemy
I think the hierarchy is way more convoluted that this, I’d go with:
– Muslims (Mostly because of their skin color)
– Black people
– Trans (The victim du jour)
– Lesbians
– Women
– Muslim reformers (Expressing concerns about Islam somehow strips them of the victim status endowed by their skin color)
– Gay Men (The likes of Douglass Murray, Andrew Sullivan or Dave Rubin are afforded no victim points the second they go off-script. Toxic masculinity is also attributed to gay men, so they have slipped down the hierarchy)
– East Asians
– Jews
– White men
The problem with intersectionality of course is that it is impossible to know when to stop splitting the groups. I could have made a list with a thousand categories.
AesopFan Says:
March 9th, 2018 at 2:57 am
Who wins top billing in the intersectionality sweepstakes?
We all know the answer to that one.
Islam is pretty high, but higher than that would be Lucifer or Ishtar/sexual liberation/V for Victory/Freedom/ISIS/Mary/Goddess/US capitol+Statue of Liberty connection.
The Left shares much in common with the Nazi upper echelon true believers. They both believe in the potential immortality of man by serving the higher level elohim. The highest ranking Leftists are not atheists but occultists of the Theosophical and Satanic cult and death cult line.
Most secret societies or combinations are secret because this is not a fact they want the masses to comprehend: the very existence of the elohim fades into the background as a myth or story told to children.
The reality is beyond most human’s conception.