Amidst the recent upheavals in which conservative superstars Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter had to pull their speaking events at Berkeley University, a few brave liberals were surprised to find themselves jolted upwards and condemning the evacuations. How many of those who emerged from when the culture wars kicked off – circa 1960s – would today condone the violent actions of Antifa, BAMN, and other “activists” of that ilk?
Since the free speech movement, synonyms of much lesser value have been attached to the word liberalism: crassness, irascibility, and derangement. Here, the aptly dubbed “Triggly Puff” and “AIDs Skrillex” provide two particularly freakish examples. Due to such maggoty bastardizations, I think “liberalism” is a spurious term for describing the felonious thugs seen daily on college campuses, blocking roads, and perhaps even sitting in the first-class section, where a progressive-minded bourgeoisie can comfortably make excuses for this behavior, saying things like “you have no right to an audience.” These aren’t the prodigy of Rawls or Galbraith or MLK, which confirms all required exordiums (i.e. classical) to the word.
Therefore, critics oughtn’t use their methods of rebellion – hurling unfounded accusations of “racism,” “fascism,” and “phobia” – and thus deem them what they are not. For there is a preferred term for those who, although they share a taste for certain state policies, deride liberals as too soft and not radical enough.
This is, intersectionalism.
Patrick R. Grzanka, a professor of psychology, edits a “reader” of this postmodern prattle. To prepare accordingly, one should bring their favorite salad dressing, as the work is filled with jargon and invented words. Gander upon this gem: “It would appear that the current moment would require us to think also about how the deployment of sexuality subtends and is anchored by the contemporary capitalist mode of production.” The masterpiece is sprinkled with illuminating salt like, “White-capitalist-heteronormative-patriarchy.” It implores us to consider new modes of “knowledge production,” as knowledge is always linked with power. This is an idea that the late, sagacious Michel Foucault came up with, who once said that he wished his books were to act as “Molotov cocktails or minefields; I would like them to self-destruct after use, like fireworks.” I remain convinced that the aforementioned lightweight terrorists adhere to this sort of scholarship.
I’ve made further observations. intersectionalists, including their dandy apologists, are the type of people who, in the event of a terrorist attack or mass shooting, will say, “You can’t generalize all Muslims,” but then turn around and pronounce that, “White people must account for this.” Who will look at a single case of white-on-black homicide, a la Dylan Roof, and make it exemplary of white supremacy, but then ignore the six-to-one ratio of black-on-white crime. Who will praise a football player for exercising his First Amendment, but demand that anyone else be boycotted or fired for daring to criticize their avocation. Who will decry the “cultural appropriation” of dreadlocks and Native American headbands, but ask what the problem is with a black James Bond. Who will gripe that pronouns be used properly when discussing a transgender person, but insist that colorblindness is impossible because their race is what you’ll instantly recognize. Who will say that the male sex oppresses the female sex, but won’t see anything untoward if a man identifying as a woman goes into a locker-room labeled: “Ladies.” Who will criticize those that “slut-shame” Miley Cyrus after she asks if people want to touch her vagina, but then damn men who say “hello, beautiful” to a woman on the street. Who will call for “equal rights,” but then say “there’s no reason to ever hit a woman” – even if that woman initiated violence against a man. Likewise with musicians and companies who will boycott a state for not respecting LGBTQ “rights,” but then play in a country that forbids, via brutal death, said-lifestyles. That will sympathize with “democracy,” but, when seeing the wrong person voting or running for office, insist that “he’s not my representative!” Who will call themselves “anarchists” while aggrandizing a larger entitlement state.
Plainly, consistency has never been a consideration of these finger-wagging “activists.” Suggesting this all, again, is merely an act of “racism” or “sexism” or “guilt” or “derailment” – i.e. mental off-switches that save people the trouble of having to use logic.
But they should be pleased of the progress they’ve made. After all, there does seems to be a race amongst white intersectionalists to see who’s strongest “ally” in the war against female and minority oppression. For men, this is usually demonstrated with acts of effeminateness, speaking in decibels not of their own natural voice. For women, complaining about “fake allies!” And for both, by screaming at the first other straight white male who doesn’t recognize his godhood.
This celebration of self-flagellation is meant to dethrone themselves from their inherited privilege and power. Unable to rip the skin off their bones, it’s the only option they have. That must count for something. In a word, the rantings of these prigs amounts to little more than therapy, an item that Eric Hoffer left out when writing about “the nature of mass movements.” It begs questions. Does that make a therapist out of those unfortunate enough to listen to their madness? And: How does one visualize the “victory”?
Common ground? Intersectionalists exclaim the need for “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “inclusion.” This is what I have dubbed Kumbaya Theorem. Discounting the reality, it is urgent that we pretend that no conflicts exist in a pluralistic society.
Discernibly, intersectionalists too advocate for separation, this when they keep away from white people who don’t acknowledge their “privilege.” (Rather than, say, someone who endorses Sharia law but who also organizes a “women’s march” on the nation’s capital.) One can also see this with “safe spaces” and separated dorms on college campuses.
Most insidiously, since they know who the enemy is, many unwitting participants are conscripted into the cause. What they believe in or how they behave: irrelevant. Black and Hispanic Trump supporters are traitors. The end. This is the mission of dethronement, waged with a weaponized delirium, the likes of which unseen outside the walls of a psyche ward.
* K.M. Patten is a libertarian writer and activist living in the Los Angeles area, a place he hopes to one day escape from. He has a column at Strike the Root and has contributed to Lew Rockwell, Paranoia Magazine, and A Voice for Men. His first book, a collection of essays, is expected to be released before he dies.
Latest posts by Being Libertarian (see all)
- Shooting at 2 Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand - March 15, 2019
- The Chinese Threat Against Taiwan Renewed - March 8, 2019
- Inequality is Inevitable and Irrelevant (Part 2) - March 5, 2019