Archives For Intersectonality

Truth Exchange’s (TruthXchange) layman-friendly, academic discussion between its director, Dr. Peter Jones, and Australia’s Dr. Stephen Chavura is a worthwhile look at the surreptitious cognitive devices, and distortions, being used to undermine healthy tradition in Western societies.

The hour-long podcast, entitled ‘The Great Awokening: Being Woke in a Post-secular society’, is a “Wokeness 101” crash course. Discussing the jargon, and ideological foundations of Leftist constructs such as “white fragility”, “systemic racism”, who are the Frankfurt school, John Dewey’s possible connection to that Marxist movement, and its progeny: Cultural Marxism.

Jones outlined how the absence of well-defined terms automatically negate terms like ‘systemic racism’ because its founded on subjective ambiguity.

This “vagueness” was bolstered by “questionable examples” which are also used to prop up generalizations.

In order to prove the existence of systemic racism – the belief that “all institutions are solely programmed to benefit white people” – advocates have to use melanin as a measuring stick in order to give their argument the appearance of credibility.

This vagueness necessitates the art of embellishment, and the overlooking of irony.

Jones argued that “being called systemic racism based on white melanin is extremely simplistic” because skin colour is “crazy criterion.” Define whiteness.

Without a proper definition for systemic, there can be no intellectually honest justification for labelling a person, place or thing, as being proof of the existence of “white systemic racism.” Using melanin to judge an entire group of people as evil, for instance, is by definition racist.

For example, ‘white systemic racism’ asserts that racism is a sin condition that only plagues those born with white melanin.

Jones (rightly in my opinion) labelled this a product of “post-modern hermeneutics.” There is “no such thing as truth” means that destructive untruths can be given free reign. Evidence can be manufactured and made to look a certain way, as long as those with the power have control of the language and/or narrative.

Such as the abuse of language which calls abortion “healthcare”, and the once celebrated [violent] intellectual practice of revisionism (deconstructing, and remaking history, people, places and things in our own image, through a preferred subjective ideological lens).

For Jones this is the applied “theory of language as a use of power.”

Linking in Cultural Marxism, Chavura stated that Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.”

Chavura added that we shouldn’t use the term Cultural Marxism without qualification and caution, but “anyone who says that C.M isn’t a thing, doesn’t really understand that this particular mindset, was, and is, very common in universities. Particularly from the 1960s onwards.”

The fruit of which we’re witnessing at work in society today with domestic attempts at overturning, and undermining Biblical Christianity and Western Civilization.

Disagreeing with Jones’ comment about a detachment of Cultural Marxism from Marxism proper, Chavura noted that it’s important not to “downplay the relationship. Cultural Marxism”, he affirmed, “comes out of Marxism.

This relationship is clearly present in Black Lives Matter’s hatred for capitalism. The economic dichotomy of Marx lives on in “Woke Theory” and the BLM movement, “promoting victimization” along with the noticeable “absence of forgiveness” and mercy.

In general, I found little to dislike or with which to disagree.

I wasn’t aware of the connection Jones makes between John Dewey, Marxism, and the Frankfurt movement.

In addition, I don’t share Stephen’s current pessimism about America. Underestimating the ability, capacity and faith of the American people, goes hand in hand with the historical caveats against invading Russia from the West during winter.

However, Chavura’s cautious optimism (self-described “pessimistic optimism”) does raise important critical questions. While he ‘believes in the resolve of Americans’ and (correctly) holds the view that the current contemporary context is, or is birthing a “Kairos Moment” for the Christian Church, he’s also a realist. Aware that ‘sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.’

I would add onto this discussion the crisis of Critical Race Theory. As well as the culture of suspicion spread by the Intersectionality rubric, which forces onto society an us vs. them ‘cognitive distortion.’ (Jonathon Haidt)

The: “you are what they say you are. You will do, think, speak, as they tell you to, or else!”

If, as Chavura has said, ‘the Middle-Class is being weaponized’, I don’t think it’ll be a weapon of mass destruction.  

I don’t think the Middle-Class are fully capable of being turned into one.

If the Middle-Class is weaponized, it’ll be the weaponization of Middle-Class youth. Whose parents have long abdicated responsibility for what their children are learning.

If Cultural Marxism continues to march, recruit, and mobilize jackboots without challenge, the Middle Class are in for a great culture shock, as their youth seek to act out their indoctrination. Triggered into action by reflexes long conditioned through exposure to carefully positioned Marxists, manipulative propaganda, and the mass distortion of political education.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australian TR News contributor, Avi Yemini masterfully illustrated how toxic intersectionality is to mental health. If intersectionality can’t find oppression, it’ll apply cognitive distortions to “find” oppression where none existed or exists.

Yemini wrote on Twitter:

“I’m half white. Meaning half of me is responsible for the oppression of the other half. I finally grew the bollocks to confront myself. I demanded an apology from my oppressive half. He refused. Selfish prick.”

Jonathon Haidt explains in ‘The Coddling of the American Mind‘, that the concept of intersectionality follows directly on the heals of Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay, ‘Repressive Tolerance’.  Marcuse, ‘the father of the New Left’, was the main influence behind the traditional Left moving from standing up for worker’s rights to promoting social justice movements.

In applying the Marxist dichotomy of oppressed vs. oppressor to the ‘Left-Right dimension’, Marcuse painted the Right ‘as the party of “hate”, the Left as the party of “humanity.” His hard line polarising set one group against the other, without regard for common ground. The Right were a sinful party of hate vs. the Left a sinless party of humanity; the Right warlike, the Left peace loving.

For example:

‘Even though the Democrats controlled Washington at that time, Marcuse associated the right with the business community, the military, and other vested interests that he saw as wielding power, hoarding wealth, and working to block social change.The left referred to students, intellectuals, and minorities of all kinds. For Marcuse, there was no moral equivalence between the two sides.’ (Haidt, p.69)

The ‘end goal of Marcuse’s revolution is not equality but a reversal of power.’ From the platform of identity politics and critical theory, intersectonality entrenches the sinless side against the sinful other. According to Haidt this is exhibited by the ‘untruth of us vs. them’, and it’s powered by “…identity politics, which amplifies the human proclivity for us-versus-them thinking.’

Consequently, on many University campuses the Marcusian doctrine has ‘prepared students [and their teachers] for battle, not for learning.’ Through Marcusian’s vicious dichotomy the sinless party of humanity self-righteously justifies violence against the sinful party of hate, drawing the West into an inevitable civil war, potentially even a global one. It’s apt that Haidt references back to witch hunts, and the bloody suppression of those deemed unworthy of life during the Communist Cultural Revolution in China during the late 1960s to mid-1970s.

Hadit tracks the birth of intersectionality back to  Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, a one time law professor at UCLA, now professor at Columbia. Her 1989 essay on the subject is considered by Haidt to be ‘important insight’ into why ‘you can’t just look at a few big “main effects” of discrimination; you have to look at interactions, or “intersections.” Citing Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge, he defines intersectionality ‘as an analytic tool that examines the impact of power relations’ between people, groups, cultures, sub-cultures and institutions.

He agrees with the premise of interesectionality because power has a tendency to be abused and ‘cruelly used’. Thus creating ‘disadvantage in ways that are often blind to others.’ The problem is that ‘certain interpreations’ of intersectionality corrupt it through misapplication, and weaponization. As a result, ‘interpretations of intersectionality teach people to see bipolar dimensions of privilege and oppression’ everywhere.

This magnifies a ‘proton pseudos; imagining oppression where none exists. Then exaggerating, or ignoring oppression where it does exist. For instance, black on black crime in the United States is overlooked for the racist cops vs. the black community narrative.

The flaw in Haidt’s affection, as he inadvertently admits, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intersectionality is an unstable, volatile concept. It’s function may intend to protect and serve the vulnerable against abuses of power, but misused (as we’re seeing examples of exploding to life everywhere), intersectonality is the source of confusion, dysfunction and violence.

Intersectionality is simply a bad idea. It’s primary use is as a weapon, not a shield. By way of instilling in people self-hatred, through guilt, shame, blame and condemnation, intersectionality is the Marcusian weapon of choice in it’s destructive quest for a ‘reversal of power’.

Through Marcuse’s sinless vs. sinful – party of hate vs. party of humanity – divide and conquer dichotomy, intersectionality justifies senseless violence, believing (without question) all kinds of accusations. As long as those accusations come from those deemed oppressed by the privileged vs. oppressed intersectional rubric.

Intersectionality is no liberator, reconciler or redeemer. It does violence to society in large part because it empowers the abuse of language and by default manipulative propaganda. This allows people to ‘label their opponents’ words [or silence] as violence, whereby they give themselves permission to engage in ideologically motivated physical violence.’

Intersectionality is a thought prison that chains people to fear and suspicion. It serves self-righteousness and encourages people to replace evidence based reasoning with emotion; charitable interpretation with a list of cognitive distortions, such as  ‘catastraphising’, ‘mind reading’, ‘dichotomous thinking’, ‘negative filtering’, ‘blame’, and ‘positive discounting’.

This joyless yardstick thinking drives a wedge into communities, families, Churches and Western governments, which explains why warmongering Western Communists are among Marcuse’s greatest admirers.

Conclusively, intersectionality raises more questions than it can answer, and raises more problems than it claims to want to solve.

Hence the still powerful relevance of these words, ‘if a blind man follows another blind man, they both fall into a pit.’ – Jesus, Matthew 15:13, ESV


References:

Haidt, J. & Lukianoff, G. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure,  Penguin Random House