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