Joshua Mitchell has figured it out—mostly. Here is the main thesis of his essay “Dead Conservative Memes Can’t Defeat the Identity Politics Clerisy“:
Neither liberals nor conservatives understand the weapon of identity politics, and the immense destruction it can cause. Identity politics does not simply parse different kinds of people. Identity politics is concerned with the relationship of transgression and innocence between different, purportedly monovalent, kinds of people. Identity politics is not just about who we are, it is about a moral stain or purity that defines who we are.
The language of stain and purity, of transgression and innocence, is Christian language. Other religions are concerned with these categories as well, but our long familiarity with Christianity in America means that the invocation of these categories by the practitioners of identity politics derives from Christianity, and from Protestantism in particular…America has not lost its religion. America has relocated its religion to the realm of politics.
That the religion we now see about us is the logical culmination of main-line protesting Christianity is a well-known thesis, nowhere seriously disputed. A sotr of Calvinism or a strict puritanism with man as his own god.
Identity politics transforms politics. It turns politics into a religious venue of sacrificial offering. Ponder for a moment, Christianity. Without the sacrifice of the innocent Lamb of God, there would be no Christianity. Christ, the scapegoat, renders the impure pure—by taking upon Himself “the sins of the world.” By the purging of the scapegoat, those for whom He is the sacrificial offering purify themselves. Identity politics is a political version of this cleansing for groups rather than for individuals. The scapegoat in the case of identity politics is the white heterosexual male who, if purged, supposedly will restore and confirm the cleanliness of all other groups of communities. He is the transgressor; all others—women, blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQs—have their sins covered over by the scapegoat, just as the scapegoated Christ covered over the sins of all the descendants of Adam.
Perhaps this could have been expressed with more elegance, but the gist is clear, and correct. That white normal men are guilty of the sins of the world is undeniable. Yet one wonders if the perpetually outraged who consider Caucasian male stock ideal sacrificial offerings know that this implies the natural superiority of these men. Mitchell doesn’t see it this way, but spotted and sickly beasts are never brought to the altar. Only the pure and unstained and beautiful fulfill that role.
Now it might not be true in fact that white men are superior. But the wholesale movement to burn them at the stake will inexorably cause them to believe it. White normal men will be left with two choices. Become something other than normal—male feminist, tranny, traitor—or embrace their race and join the war. Every white man forced into his role as white man will become proof to the Victims that their worst fears are true, creating a vicious feedback.
Those enthralled by identity politics seek redemption by purging the uncleanliness they claim is external to themselves. The white heterosexual male is the first unclean transgressor in their sights; but because the innocence of those enthralled by identity politics must be purchased through the sacrifice of a transgressor, once he has been purged, another transgressor must be found. White women will be next, followed, I suspect, by “heteronormative” African-American men, whose endorsement of the generative family is not sufficiently “inclusive.”
I’d refine the first guess to white Christian women. The female purple-hair brigade who shout their abortions will always be Victims. Any group that is in open rebellion with Reality will be Victims. Of course, if all white normal men are purged, which isn’t likely because at least some of these fellows will fight back, and then all white Christian women go, the Hierarchy of Rebellion will then assert itself. This also goes by the name of Intersectionality: the biggest Victim wins.
Mitchell says “Identity politics must continue to expand the coterie of innocents whose ‘voices have not been heard,’ who have been ‘marginalized,’ or ‘excluded.’ The politicization of the category ‘trans-gender’ is therefore a necessary development of identity politics, irrespective of the small number of people who claim that identity category as their own.”
That is to say, the person belonging to the identity group with the most Victim Points tops the Hierarchy of Rebellion. Victim Points are scored for every act against Reality, with more outrageous acts scoring higher. Wanting to masturbate into another man’s rectum is surely outrageous, and thus has a mighty score, but wanting to do so while wearing a dress boosts the total. Making the rectum belong a child has to be unbeatable. (Scoff at that, did you? Then look at this.)
As the sacrifices progress, a sinister downward spiral develops until the insanity becomes so great that, as happens in democracies, one man has (as Parkinson said) the courage to open fire. This will come as a relief to almost everybody, including many Victims, who know what they’re doing is wrong but don’t know how to stop themselves.
Mitchell: “We must be clear where this seemingly endless increase in the number of transgressors ends: It ends with the indictment of Man himself, for which the resolution will be either the embrace of transhumanism or the eradication of Man altogether.”
This is where, to an ever-so-small extent, we part company. Transhumanism can never be, but Man as god can (Man as God, no). This isn’t the Abolition of Man, but the elevation of man’s will.
Putting a peg where a leg used to be does not make a pirate into a trans-man; neither is he transitioned into a woman if he has a certain accident with his sword. Nobody can escape being a man (or woman), no matter what augmentation of their body. Mitchell would agree with this.
That the peg-leg is thought to make the pirate into a cyborg (why the prejudice toward electronic modifications?) proves that man thinks himself a god, for only God can change natures. Transhumanism is the elevation of man where the will is sovereign and contains the power to change the very fabric of the universe. The power is only idealistic, a farcical fantasy. That it is believed to be a true power proves transhumanism is the epitome of insanity. But it’s at least easy to see why cries of “hate speech” are identical to charges of heresy. Speaking against transhumanism is a heresy because it denies man-as-god.
Identity politics is not transhumanism. Identity groups just want the “gibs”. Non-white men aren’t interested in living their lives “as” furries, or whatever, but as non-white men who have plenty of toys. Identity politics encourages transhumanism, though, because Victims are required, and transhumanists make the best Victims.
To support this site using credit card or PayPal click here
“Identity Politics”
This is not a good description of the opposition.
Pretty much ALL politics is based on identity, of some sort or another.
While better than “Left,” or “Liberal,” or “Democrat,” Identity Politics just confuses the issue.
The most useful term for those who hold the belief system (described below) is: Politically Correct Progressive (PC-Prog).
PC-Prog Belief System:
“Normal America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, foreigner-hating, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole.”
The PC-Prog Action Corollary weaponizes the belief system:
“Therefore, Normal America must be changed.”
Note that there is nothing about “identity” in the belief system.
It is totally based on HATRED. Not “identity.”
HATRED of Normal America and Normal Americans. Everyone can hate Normal America–even Normal Americans! No “identity” required.
The “identity” issue is secondary, tangential, and unimportant.
PC-Progism is HATRED, and a strong motivation to act on that hatred.
The “change” required by the belief system is destruction.
Understanding the opposition is key. Knowing the what/how/where/who/why/when of their beliefs empowers efforts to counter them.
Misunderstanding, mis-labeling just creates confusion, wasted energy, and useless hand-waving. All as they grow stronger and stronger, rolling inexorably toward their goal of total destruction of Normal America.
The authors of the above appear to seek Christian currency which doesn’t exist. Political currency does. That’s how you can tell it apart.
The Christian values would be unbounded but they come at a price.
So you make the clumsy case for defending the imaginary white male’s arbitrary bin of perfection hard to defend. I think the dust bin must be finally empty?
The best men know that just being white and male isn’t enough.
It’s the opposition whose fallen for the lies and so you do their work by agreeing that it is true.
Being white and male may be the thing WOMEN most prefer! That’s a whole different matter. Christianity is not a popularity contest *or a beauty contest. Politics is.
The truth always wins in the end. Insanity is not contagious: Panic is.
The weapon is intended to cast fear and panic, hatred, naturally, follows. Then tell people they can’t talk about it and you’ve got a pressure cooker. Hate speech laws, PC laws etc.
Those pushing such laws are the enemy. Media and politicians with some loud activists and celebrities, who are media, to me. Then there are the mirror opposite equivalent on the other side. Not the actual ‘victims’, they are not the enemy, but who do exist, and who are twice injured by the dumbest of reactions from the ones with the least excuse. All the gear, no idea.
Briggs, thank you for publishing this article. It helps me better understand what is going on in this terrible struggle between good and evil in our country
I am forwarding it to all my family members and friends. You are making a great contribution in the work you do.
As far as “Protestants” go, many disagree that we are a god. No. We are a fallen being made in the *image* of He That Is. We have *some* of His powers. We do not have all of them. We are very much limited. We are to love Him and respect Him as being our Creator. We are His Children, and our relationship is one of love, respect and obedience to Him. That so many have fallen by the wayside is no surprise. The Prince of Lies is very active in human affairs these days.
….seek redemption by purging the uncleanliness … that is external to themselves…
…turns politics into a religious venue …
Briggs, here on this site, does exactly the above things routinely, sometimes for days on end.
Today we observe he’s preceded those remarks by “identity politics” — with the gripe that society is applying, increasingly, the wrong values/religion.
Just goes to show, if one has the “correct” values or religion (eg Briggs’) then imposing one’s will on others, or wishing to, is ok. If the wrong values, then everything associated is fair game. A fabulous illustration here today how the end justifies the means!
“That the religion we now see about us is the logical culmination of main-line protesting Christianity is a well-known thesis, nowhere seriously disputed. ”
If it’s nowhere seriously disputed, the reason is that it is not a serious thesis. Historically, Leftism has done better in Catholic countries and formerly Catholic countries that were never Protestant than in countries that were primarily Protestant. The primary obstacles to world Communism were the largely Protestant countries of the Anglosphere. In the US, although progressive politics is very popular in formerly Puritan and Quaker areas, it is also very popular among the largely Catholic immigrants in major coastal cities.
But you used the word “logically”, not historically. I can’t see that as any more than a verbal flourish since you don’t offer any notion of a logical sequence to back up the claim, and by many measures Leftists are more like Catholics than like Protestants: they both demand that you suspend logic and believe in unobservable miracles (transubstantiation vs. transexualism); when in power, they both try to silence dissent; they both raise one class of people above another in terms of virtue; they both have doctrines that change over time, but demand full allegiance of the doctrine of the moment.
@David Gudeman
Fellow protestant, I can’t agree with everything you said, but protestantism isn’t nearly as “dead” as Catholics seem to insist. Especially English speaking protestantism has shown itself a vital force, there’s a reason the only socialist party in the world with an official hymn is the Labour Party; at the time the anti-religious sentiments of socialism were total non starter, religious faith blunted socialism in the UK for a long time.
I think Moldbug came the closest to getting it right, modern socialism has it’s roots in Geneva and the protestant world BUT in protestant countries the infestation was held back because it had natural predators that do not exist nearly as well in other countries. It’s a case of lapsed Christianity and heresy, kind of like Islam. Putting it wholly at the door of protestantism as “of course!”? I’m not so sure.
White men ARE superior, although not naturally so. We white guys are largely free from the soul-sucking burden of societal breaks and preferential treatment. This is what toughens us up, and weakens the indulged groups to the point that they just can’t compete in the only arena that matters, reality.
Its hard to overstate the evil that the libs inflict on society by brainwashing their constituents into believing that they just can’t make it on their own.
“It’s a case of lapsed Christianity and heresy, kind of like Islam. ”
There is no such thing as heresy in Protestantism.
“Every man is free to practice that faith which he deems by the light of reason, to be true. ”
(paraphrased)
There’s no going back from there.
(Kieth Ward on Liberal Christianity and the Protestant Reformation. )
For those who still own their own brain and who haven’t loaned it out to the internet.
Joy, no there absolutely is heresy in Protestantism and always has been. No creedal Protestants have ever thought otherwise. We have even persecuted those we believed to be heretics.
If I can, there are many arguments against Protestantism that Catholics “like” but don’t realize it’s unpersuasive. The equivalent is me accusing you of worshipping Mary, an argument Protestants “like” but that I know is completely unpersuasive to any thoughtful Catholic.
It is actually Catholic and Protestant thinking that we are bound by conscience. It is an informed conscience but it has never been the free for all in theory or in practice that Catholics seem to think.
If liberal Protestantism stems inexorably from the principles of Protestantism, then where do liberal Catholics come from?
Pingback: Daybook – Dark Brightness
Liberalism (in the sense of freedom of conscience and minimal government) actually can be traced back to Protestant thought; Marxism and critical theory cannot. Both Marxism and critical theory are often treated as a further developments of liberalism, but they are not (unless you consider a reaction against something as a development of it, in which case Protestant is a development of Catholicism and Catholicism is the root of those ideas).
Marxism is a reaction against the free market, and there is nothing Protestantism itself that is against that (although Protestantism, like Catholicism has had its proponents of communal society). Critical theory is a rebellion against Western Culture itself–against truth, against rational thought, against self-restraint; there is nothing in Protestantism that would lead to such ideas. There is simply no thread of thought that leads from Protestantism to SJWs that cannot be traced pretty much the same way from Catholicism.
Hoyos, Glad you said this:
“It is an informed conscience but it has never been the free for all in theory or in practice that Catholics seem to think.”
“It is actually Catholic and Protestant thinking that we are bound by conscience.”
(witnessed the opposite variously asserted or insinuated by professed Catholics and loud angry zealots.
(Regarding heresy.) “No creedal Protestants have ever thought otherwise.”
Whatever a creedal Protestant is. Presumably one that says ‘the creed” during church services. Or one that interprets the bible and insists on its meaning.
The point is that without dogma there is no heresy. The creed is spoken without fear of reprisal. You don’t say it if you don’t believe it.
There is a common thread running through all the churches. Where they all agree. Some perhaps are not even recognisable as Christian but as a different faith they would be treated as separate. A heresy claim would be superfluous.
“If liberal Protestantism stems inexorably from the principles of Protestantism, then where do liberal Catholics come from?”
According to Kieth Ward it comes from a belief in the notion that:
“Everybody can be wrong about anything” Protestants have less problem with the recent Pope Francis statements.
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he should consider true.”
He also says that most of us Protestants don’t stick to that freedom of faith and bible interpretation in disputes with others.
“ We have even persecuted those we believed to be heretics.”
Which illustrates the point.
Yet freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is the legacy of the Protestant reformation. It is the reason why people are no longer punished for believing the wrong things. The exact opposite of what is happening now with the PC brigade and media sniffing out haters. To then blame Protestants is erroneous scapegoating.
The Catholic teaching is “The pope cannot err when he speaks on behalf of the whole church on a matter of faith and morals that is part of the original deposit of faith. “
Embarrassment is saved by complex arguments about what that really means so there is wiggle room. The climate change thing likely is not “part of that original deposit of faith.”
“The Pope has the sole right to tell you what the bible means. “ They’re not so happy when he does so and they discover the bind they are in.
Hence dissent, cue more Protesting Christians.
Of course Protestants believe that heresy exists. The Mormon faith is polytheistic, and claims that every soul is a god in potentia. Jesus sailing a magic submarine carrying the lost tribe of Israel to the new world to become the Native Americans is just wacky icing on the cake of lies. The Mormons are, in large part, really good, decent people. It’s just a shame about their religion, and its propensity to retroactively ‘baptise’ the dead into their faith.
David Gudeman, Marxism can hardly be reduced to mere reaction against free market. It is an attack against property, family, against class distinction, against any distinct and independent unit.
It can be argued that liberals were the first socialists. Whatever they thought they were doing the liberal revolutions actually attacked property of Church and nobility. They introduced the idea of modern national state and government as a body through which the Third Estate rules over itself.