Exh idpolling

My Intersectionality views

My Ideologies intercession with idpol and closely related views

My Wokeness/SJWism views

We have to fight against the palimpsests of ongoing oppression

Idpol,i.e “identity politics” originated with black Queer Marxist lesbian feminists along with the Combahee River Collective (1974 - 1980). When I write about idpol or “identity politics”, I know that “representation politics” is the official, formal term for it 

I feel there are better ways to stop the capitalist recuperation that plagues marginalized communities without emphasizing idpol and without using overkill idpol

Abolishing identity categories (like via Gender abolishment, Queer Anarchism, Queer Theory, Queer neutrality/queer anti-identitarianism, Gay Shame movement, Anarcha Feminism, Gender Acceleration, etc) is better than idpol and Intersectionality and fixes the problems that idpol was created to fix in a natural, non essentialist way

I support Jose Munoz's disidentification and his deconstruction of the positivism at the heart of identity politics . Also see this post here by me 

I do see ‘positives’ in idpol (I am not a fan of idpol tbh), but I am against overkill idpol.  I feel overkill Identity Politics seeks to divide us and conquer us and separate us into these little categories. It's not for me.  

Idpol in some ways can be seen as economic and class focused so that is another plus with idpol

Idpol advocates for rights, equality, and justice for specific groups like women, BIPOC, and gay and trans people. 

I am against Lauren Kelly (The Hill)’s identity politics.

This sort of activism presupposes that these group categories exist and are a useful basis for political organizing. This is admirable and base yet despite this premise there are still many issues with the idpol spectrum, in particular Buzzfeed-overkill idpol and even with idpol itself to a much much lesser extent. Because even the best ideologies should not be shielded from healthy critique, and even if idpol is the best thing since sliced bread, it has to be critiqued

However “Identity politics (idpol) is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature

I do not partake in idpol (and I somewhat am not a fan of idpol) and I am against overkill idpol because to have my views on idpol/overkill idpol is rational and supported by good argument. Not partaking in idpol/rejecting overkill idpol was the default for the left-wing back when the left was working class, popular and useful to boot

I critique idpol insofar as because idpol preserves victimization-enabled identities and social roles (i.e. affirming rather than negating gender, class, etc.) and idpol also inflicts guilt-induced paralysis, amongst others . So I critique idpol for those reasons mostly

Because idpol not dealt with.  Certain idpol like buzzfeed idpol , overkill ipdol and maybe more radlib idpol are treated as a "mistake" by Liberal 2.0  in some way like the issue with such idpol is with the strategy with which it implements to achieve its aims moreso than the aims themselves, as if the fundamental core of its analysis is right but its means of reaching that place are not. The criticism of that idpol by Liberal 2.0ers is more often than not limited to their "excesses" as if the problem wasn't actually with the root of their worldview.

The "stop fighting the culture war" slogans actually are great expression of this. You'll see if you pay even the slightest attention, that this is mainly used to discipline "conservatives" (actually, anyone that isn't overtly progressivist) and when it is used to discipline progressives it is just because of the way they are fighting that is being criticized, not though what they are fighting for (radlib idpol)

As an example, if you believe that a furry showing up to a strike in a fursuit is a cringe thing that alienates red blooded human beings this is "fighting the culture war" but if you believe that furry liberation is the the whole reason for unions then this too is "fighting the culture war" yet furries should still 100 percent feel comfy to wear their fursuits to such things, since obviously they should, they only need to be class first. 

The whole idea of normalcy is absolutely absent in the mindsets of the Liberal 2.0 though now to sneer "why do you even give a damn bro/broette" as the working class are scolded its their responsibility to fight for the "rights" of ever growing more obscure groups of decedent goofballs as if these should be a precondition to some left wing economic system (i.e socialism for example) somehow.

Yet caring about this renders someone a "right winger with strange hangups" while at the same time the furries "have their hearts in the correct place" in the views of the "anti-idpol" leftist who has seemingly never spoke to any working class person outside of situations where the workers know they got to be on their best behavior as to not cause offense to their superiors.

An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do” Adolph Reed 

“I don’t ascribe in any way to these ideas that identity politics (idpol) is bad for us. I think I can take someone who is deeply concerned about patriarchy and I can make them understand how patriarchy intersects with capitalism much more than I can take someone who’s mad because GM took their job away and make them understand socialism”

-- Sean McElwee, leftism's infant terrible.

“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery." -- C. L. R. James

Now BuzzFeed idpol is shallow nevertheless and should not be trusted

Liberal 2.0ers don’t seem to comprehend the problems, but at least they are still trying to unify the working class even if they do not quite think about it like that

I believe that a lot of mainstream idpol lacks focus on class and class dynamics, and thus can use more emphasis on that. (class warfare makes things happen)

I really like  MLK Jr and his views on idpol .One such quote by MLK Jr which is critical of divisivness  "God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race, the creation of a society where every man will respect the dignity and worth of personality", more here   

I support Frederick Douglas . He had good takes on black communal self-help though African Americans cannot fight for equality alone, nobody can so some balance is needed as can be seen throughout my blog 

My thoughts on "taking responsibility for privilege". Ironically one of the larger issues with idpol is that it doesn’t truly go far enough; to take ‘responsibility for privilege’ and ‘lean out’ isn’t a call to action, but instead is a call to inaction. It means that men should have no role in dismantling the patriarchy, but instead should perform meaningless atonement and performatively praise women in the abstract.

Materialist feminists, (such as Shulamith Firestone and Christine Delphi) understand that patriarchy is binded to family structure, reproduction, and social institutions including marriage, and that these are concrete measures that a person can take toward changing these forms. 

Measures that don’t require policing of language, or generic denunciations, but that instead require a broad movement with a social totality vision , with liberation for all

My views on the circle of grievance. Woke language is very imprecise, demanding repercussions , reparations , action and appreciation that is hollow. 

The call to act replaces the act, and enables a simulated politics which are not defined by power but defined by endless verbal warfare that doesn’t have conclusion or resolution. 

With the battle never won, every new crisis precipitates more and more demands on its participants, until at last we have nothing remaining but the endless war versus this modern lie kingdom, an imagined and evil place opposed to the good and the beautiful.

The congregation concedes its failures but are chastised for their wrong contrition and are called upon to do more, to have repercussions placed upon them, to see a truth that is not possible and too mutable to ever find. Ultimately as we reach one revelation, the next, higher step replaces it, demanding more. And on and on this goes around , this circle of grievance that thinks of itself as an incline

I reject overkill idpol and buzzfeed idpol since they are weaponized tribal collectivism and plural individualism that is antithetical to most forms of individualism 

I affirm that the rights to self-ownership and for security in a person’s life, liberty, and their property are natural rights which are inherent in all individual humans and are not contingent on any other characteristic. 

I reject the State persecuting or conferring privileges on any person or group that is based on actual or perceived membership in any id group. 

I am against any effort by the State or non-state actors to implement or force abstract equality/equity notions by any action that is in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. 

I further am against any effort by the State and its Cathedral, or any other allies to promote political tribalism, which merely serves to pit individuals in opposition to each other and to distract from the crimes committed by the State and its allies. 

I affirm all individuals’ right to associate voluntarily that is based upon any criteria they choose and to perform collectively in order to achieve their desired ends, as long as they are not in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

The CPUSA reflects some of my thoughts on idpol. I also expand on idpol in this post, and essentialism in this post

I echo this blog post and its criticism of American thought, . American thought is a bigger part of what idpol and intersectionality are part of, and we must defeat that toxic way of thinking. American Thought is also not consistent with true Marxism and should be rejected

There shouldn’t be CEOs or corporations since in a socialistic, egalitarian society there shouldn’t be rich people, capitalism, classes or hierarchies, i.e workers should own the means of production . Thus there shouldn’t be a need to have diversity at the CEO level (since CEOs and corporations should not exist)

I respect Fred Hampton’s commitment to solidarity even if he was using idpol.  Currently existing, modern idpol, quite separate from the idealized version that people rave about, is inherently anti-solidaristic. 

It's a way for toxic people to scold others who weren’t born using ‘correct’ pronouns. It is about siloing groups who compete in a zero-sum race for oppression cred at the same time as individuals are being subsumed into each alleged monolithic identity,  irrespective of the differences between them. It is paying lip service to the struggles of other people while being monomaniacally absorbed in idpol person’ own concerns.

Adolph Reed quotes Mao's aphorism that "politics is about uniting the many to defeat the few." From one standpoint you could say that having a Black panthers contributes to balkanizing the Left, but Fred Hampton's solidarity commitment is obvious and stands in stark contrast to toxic people who's only motive seems to be to eject people out of the movement like latter day inquisitors. 

Hampton organized with the young activists who prominently displayed the confederate flag as a symbol of their movement. He didn't call them neofascist bigots who should just go join the klan already.

This is reminiscent of the 19th century national liberation movements in Europe. 

There was a reactionary Italian priest who was known for opposing the 1848 revolution in Italy and the risorgimento more broadly. After he became well known across Europe for being a reactionary he went to the US for some Catholic PR or something like that. 

At a stop in the Eastern Midwest he was mobbed and chased out of the town he was in by the largely German migrants (48ers) of that area for his notorious politics. 

A lot of these migrants were refugees of the failed revolutions in Germany. They had zero connection to Italian nationalism, but they saw their own liberation struggles reflected in the experience of the Italians and they stood in solidarity with them. 

"We don't hate the mothafucking white people. We hate the oppressors, whether he be white, black, brown, or yellow." Fred Hampton

Fred Hampton was an awesome person that just knew how to fix the US, assist the people and solve injustice. He was a true once in a generation type of person.

The fact is ,Fred Hampton and MLK weren’t murdered for being black, they were murdered for being socialists and for starting to unite working class people. With Fred Hampton leading the way, I’m sure the Black panthers would have been able to curb the destruction of the black communities in the 1970s and 1980s. After all, Hampton was getting the Chicago gangs to become legit and to join the black panthers

Fred Hampton was only 21 years old when he was murdered, imagine how much good that he might have done throughout an entire lifetime. He was a true protegy for proletariat solidarity ,proven by his "class reductionist" message and the great results that came from that.

It is amazing the simplicity of what he preached, and the power of the discourse, especially in comparison to the modern langage/discourse on race-ethnicity that's so odd and that has so much racist connotations (whiteness, fragility, privilege, etc.).

Upsetting because, as is the case in most revolutionary movements (Victor Serge talks about something like that in his memoir in regards to the 1917 revolution), the best die first

MLK was a leftist that trained at CPUSA's communism schools. He advocated for left wing economics loudly and he criticized capitalism a lot.

His entire legacy has been white washed by proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers in order to deradicalize him and turn him into a harmless icon and a tool for their ends. See here for more. Also see this article which expands on this

The New Left even worked with AnCap and Paleoconservative Murray Rothbard in the 1960s , including to end the Vietnam War. See this. The New Left even brought Murray left a bit including on the USSR. That is what class solidarity is all about

Some ideas on how to break free from idpol can be found here. 

More good articles on the issues of idpol can be found here

Identity needs identification in order to exist. Class is a material reality. Class exists whether or not you identify with it and whether or not you even know it exists. If you do not posses capital and you work with capital another person possesses and take home less than the entire economic value of whatever you produce , then you are in fact a proletarian. 

It has no bearing whether you never heard the term proletarian or even if you are a citizen of a society where the notion of class never was discovered and nobody has any knowledge of what a proletarian or a class is. You are still a proletarian.

This is the reason that we go on and on about "class consciousness" instead of "class identity". You can be aware or you can be not aware of the class you are a part of but what you identify as is of no importance to your class membership.

Some leftists claim that leftists who say things like "LGBTQ problems are bourgeois decadence are also included as not being left wing" but my reply is what is a "wing?"Socialists etc do class analysis not based on arbitrary American media-lens analysis of wings.

Anyway a big reason that I am generally fine and a-ok with regular idpol is the following: Idpol may not be rooted in materialist analyses but how people feel about themselves is ultimately a part of them. People have vices they can't control and they shouldn't be marginalized because of it

Every minority issue has merit. If we want left wing socioeconomics, we also have to think about all the minority individuals that are down and out and oppressed. There are too many intersectionalities between being an oppressed minority and being working class. Race issues, gender issues, LGBTQ issues, they all end up circling back to working class issues anyway due to the fact many working class people are members of some minority, and that their experience as a minority working class member is doubly awful due to the dual nature of alienation they face both economically and socially.  So that is a big reason why I am generally fine and a-ok with regular idpol 

I agree with this article on the moral piousness of Liberalism 2.0 in the class struggle

On whether idpol is truly good or bad for the working class:

Possibly, depending on how the Left or Liberal 2.0ers responds. The  ore accuate answer, which is beyond the scope of this answer, is that there is not a lot of ground for optimism. 

This is because, the link between the working class and the Left and or proto Liberal 2.0ers was destroyed under neoliberalism, and it was in fact the post-Marxist left which invented this idpol in the first place.

Idpol can be seen as alright because it makes the elite look like absolutely weak and messed up clowns in the eyes of the common man/common woman. 

By some margin, the working class is either hostile or grudgingly indifferent towards idpol and everything that's associated with it. 

Idpol is the ideology of wealthy white America (or to Liberal 2.0ers at least the "right type of white people"). Furthermore, it doesn't just make them look foolish - it actually leads to the moral degeneration of the ruling class because they get high on their own supply. 

Good luck applying the woke theories that you learned at Bowdoin to the task of containing China or putting down a popular uprising, cretins -- you can't even handle "twitter abuse" for heaven’s sake!

The very idea of Hillary Clinton attempting to run to Bernie's left on "racial and gender justice" sounds like something out of a comedy film. This farce has since turned macabre. 

At the same time, idpol is bad because it involves the ruling class conscripting minorities as a human shield. 

This is how you get 45: people gravitated toward him because he "owned the Liberal 2.0ers." And to own these Liberal 2.0ers you have get more unpc or even extreme, because the Liberal 2.0ers have made ostentatious anti-bigotry their number one plank.

This is also how you get Joe Biden, with voters religiously supporting trash Democrats to "own the racists." The ruling class is fine with both scenarios - they are victorious either way.

This is the political payload of idpol: to bait the working class into supporting the class enemy while also cementing an alliance between the ruling class, the Liberal 2.0 upper middle class, and members of "diverse communities."

This situation presents an easy opportunity for the Left to gain mainstream support by combining popular economic demands with a rejection of unpopular idpol. Picture this: in a climate where politics is dominated by crazy cultural stances, a Marxist party becomes politically "moderate" by rejecting woke nonsense. 

Obviously, there's no such party at this moment. The left hasn't been too keen to score this open goal. But perhaps before this window of opportunity shuts, someone could yet be able to rise up and say: "there is such a party!"

I support diversity and my views on political correctness have nothing to do with diversity.

While I like to deemphasize ipdol and I am against overkill/buzzfeed idpol, I support justice for marginalized groups

I echo this quote by Professor Eddie Gaude Jr of Princeton as it reflects my views on justice/idpol :

That's not what I was doing though, Joe. What I was trying to do was to say there's a way in which we can understand identity politics as just simply kind of group-based. I want to suggest that identity politics isn't -- the question of equal pay for women. That's not an identity politics question, that's a justice question. And so calling it an identity politics question is to turn one's attention away from the issue of justice, or the question of fair treatment under the law, for black men and for white, black women. That's not an identity politics question, that's just a justice question."

All criticism I make in this blog of wokeness and idpol, I criticize right wing ‘wokeness and idpol’ (racism) 10 times more 

I recognize that, while various oppressed groups experience their dispossession in ways that are specific to their oppression and that the analysis of these specificities is necessary in order to gain a full understanding of how domination functions, nevertheless, dispossession is fundamentally the theft of the capacity of each of us as individuals to create our lives on our own terms in free association with others. 

The id pol writers like Ta’Neshi Coates and Margaret Atwood are bourgeois hacks

How can woke people tell BIPOC kids that the White American man/woman will always keep them down that the odds are stacked against them and that they will always be victims while at the same time also trying to inspire them to reach for the stars, that they can be whatever they want to be and that they do not have to feel trapped in their circumstances?

I support social, peaceful, voluntary cooperation. While I feel that force might justly be used only in response to aggression, peaceful and voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression. 

I feel that associations of all kinds should be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants. This should and would allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice—of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible.

I egalitarianally support equality of authority, since I feel there is no natural right to rule, that non-consensual authority is presumptively illegitimate and state authority is non-consensual.

I believe that the commitment to the type of moral equality which underlies belief in equality of authority should also entail the rejection of subordination and exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation, workplace status, or other irrelevant characteristics.

While I feel that people’s decisions to avoid associating with others because of such characteristics should not be interfered with aggressively, I also feel that such decisions can often still be subjected to moral critique and should be opposed using non-aggressive means. More on non aggressive resistance here

“It’s all about identity on our side now They want to show, ‘He does not support me. I support you, refugee. I support you, immigrant in my neighborhood. I want to defend you.’ Women who are rejecting Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are saying ― they’re saying this is power for them. ‘Donald Trump doesn’t take me seriously? Well, I’m showing you my value and my power.’ And I think it’s like our own version of identity politics on the left that’s more empowering.” Jennifer Palmieri (Clinton aide)

"Taking anti idpol too far" is just gatekeeping bullshit intended to prevent anti idpol from being anything other than a complaint about idpol tactics or rhetoric rather than actually fighting against idpols actual political positions.

My "non contrarian" anti regular idpol position basically states that I see that regular idpollers are a bunch of histrionic distorting wreckers pursueing an essentially individualistic politics who are supported by capitalists to destroy the left and divide the working class, but somehow despite all of this, I feel that their broad political goals are basically well meaning and should never be questioned. 

My position on this too also includes acknowledging how bigotry like prejudice and anti LGBTQism and other idpol stuff affects people , me being sympathetic while still believing in class struggle. Or at least me believing that idenity is the primary thing that defines politics and groups of people (except when I strategically embrace Afro Pessimism , Queer theory etc)

But I still try to fight against the twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpol actual positions. I don't believe it is wrong for me to take my anti twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpol too far

Milquetoast leftist anti idpolers like Imdabreastar prove my point on being too soft on the  twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpol and only critiquing the low hanging regular idpol fruit instead of going further with said criticism 

Being too soft on Twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpol and on some rarer cringey regular idpol takes 

isn’t a problem for milquetoast leftist anti idpolers because of the counterproductive and backfiring damage its done to the groups it attacks (like white males in the situations where Ryan Grim, Afro Pessimism,  Menlib reddit, the feminists from Bloodlust A Feminist Journal Against Civilization would say so), but for those milquetoast leftist anti idpolers because it makes white male cishets less sympathetic to the people using it to demand concessions from them. (the white males in the situations where Ryan Grim, Afro Pessimism,  Menlib reddit, the feminists from Bloodlust A Feminist Journal Against Civilization would say so),

So said groups are expected to sit down and pipe down so they can continue to get taken for granted by people that hate them (hating white males in the situations where Ryan Grim, Afro Pessimism,  Menlib reddit, the feminists from Bloodlust A Feminist Journal Against Civilization would say they were hated). 

Milquetoast leftist anti idpolers aren’t asking for solidarity, because that's a two way street, they're telling such groups they need to be doormats. So I hear that and acknowledge that

I mean some types of idpol are sort of a mind virus

But at the same time I don’t believe the problem with the extreme forms of idpol and even some regular strains of idpol is the damage it does to those it attacks per say . It's just I’m not here to stick up for the young straight white man though. I’m not here to play idpol period. That’s because I’m not only anti the current fashion of idpol that portrays black against white, or lgbt against straight.

We must keep working toward a goal of a perfect world. We must change the explanation for struggle and division from opposing identities to a narrative of opposing classes. What I’m getting at is that soying out over some twitter leftie idpol for example is participating in idpol. The goal isn’t to win the culture war, it’s to transcend it.

We don’t automatically have to totally throw out identity and culture. Just engage with it in a more healthy, less tribalistic way.

Of course some white leftists would be offended at me saying this and might say "you (as in me) tell us outright that you have no interest in sticking up for us, yet expect us to fight on behalf of others and go on "acknowledging how all the isms and other idpol things affects people, being sympathetic" 

So I guess to some fellow leftists it would be hard for me to claim, that I somehow am different from the idpollers. So to be all things to all people and to build solidarity,  let's just say that I can stick up for white males in the situations where Ryan Grim, Afro Pessimism,  Menlib reddit, the feminists from Bloodlust A Feminist Journal Against Civilization would say they are being oppressed but at the same time in a way that fuses with my values and doesn't inflame the idpol wars.  Though I will proceed with caution if and when I really decide to go that route.  I still think that if I stand up for said non margainzlied groups in any circumstance I would literally be an idpoller.  So that is something that would guide me in this matter

I do really try to transcend politics, and not ask white cishet tribal leftists to act like cucks.

I do try to go beyond falling into the "fighting against (the types of idpol I fight against) idpol is actully idpol" vice which can be seen throughout my blogs. But I already said we need to fight the -phobias and -isms so maybe I am just playing dumb now to try and sidestep the point. It all boils down to class though. That’s always been my point. 

I am against idpol also that includes bisexual squids

I want to "fight" the Twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpol and transcend regular idpol, but I cannot bring myself to see the"facts" used to support  idpol, nor any of the philosophies or beliefs used to support idpol, and I can no longer see a use in me gaslighting the unicorn real 'victims' of idpol (if there are any otherwise fuck no) into saying it's all just a mirage.

So maybe it is a case where idpol bad on paper, but in practice, I offer no effective critique of it 

A lot of radlib types used to characterise "anti idpol" as just being for leftists that wanted to say "retard" and a lot of the time it seems like they were basically right. The biggest difference between the two is that one is more tolerant of crude language and offensive jokes.

“Taking anti radical idpol too far/ transcending regular idpol too far” is merely gatekeeping b.s intended to prevent critique and transcending of that stuff by cucking out to only critique idpol tactics or rhetoric rather than actually fighting against Twitter-buzzfeed-overkill-wikipedia idpols actual political positions and truly transcending regular idpol"

My views on anti idpol reddits can be found here

I agree with what Glenn Greenwald said below about the transphobia at the Daily Wire and at CPAC 2023 and about Christina Buttons:

"Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : If you find yourself spending your time trying to control the personal, intimate choices of adults -- either through the force of law or moralistic judgment - it's likely a sign that you have some deep unhappiness and unsettled discomfort within yourself. Mind your own business. Mar 07, 2023 

Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : There had been a Culture War consensus for 20 years or so grounded in the principle that consenting adults have the right to do what they want without the state or society intervening. Parts of the moralistic left and right (more the latter) have been eagerly abandoning this. Mar 07, 2023 

Glenn Greenwald | @ggreenwald : The attempt to depict people as sub-human monsters due to any political disagreements benefits outlets that thrive and depend on hateful polarization, but it's so often (not always, but often) a wild caricature. Read this reflective resignation letter from @buttonslives: https://t.co/Zbk5F92cNO Mar 07, 2023