New Discourses
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Writing
Intersectionality Is American Maoism
May 02, 2023
Guest contributors: ConceptualJames
post photo preview

It isn’t possible to discuss Intersectionality without starting with Kimberlé Crenshaw, who named it. Like with most Woke Marxist ideas, though, Intersectionality is recycled and repackaged, more than once. Crenshaw is therefore the wrong person to discuss to talk about the issue, but she’s a starting place.

Intersectionality was first described by this cumbersome term in a paper by Crenshaw in 1989, wherein she likened the idea of occupying more than one “position” of sociocultural systemic oppression to being caught in an intersection of highways. Crenshaw argued that if you are, say, a black woman, occupying at least two such positions of “relational” systemic oppression, then you might be hit by racism (a car coming down one road) or sexism (a car coming down the other road) without even being able to be sure which one got you. She also noted, though her colleague Patricia Hill Collins did it much more thoroughly, that to be a black woman is also to face prejudice and discrimination (so, systemic oppression) of a unique sort specific only to that intersected identity. That is, there are certain stereotypes of black women specifically, not because they are black or because they are women more generally, that could also be a source of their systemic oppression. By adding in the confusion of source, that means to occupy two systemically oppressed positions in society is to endure something like four times the capacity for oppression—creating something of a quadratic law of multiplying oppression across the Intersectional Matrix of Domination, as it is sometimes called.

The purpose of Intersectionality as a doctrine is therefore to link the various forms of systemic oppression together into a kind of meta-system of domination. It is to insist that all forms of systemic oppression are interlinked, though not the same. Technically, Intersectionality, then, is the dialectical synthesis of the various forms of systemic oppression described by Critical Identity Politics (Identity Marxism) into one overarching concept of how systemic oppression manifests and operates in society.

Like all Marxist Theories, Intersectionality isn’t merely a self-reflexive doctrine. It is also a practice, and Crenshaw was explicit about this point on many occasions. “Intersectionality is a practice,” she has often said. Ok, fine. It’s a religion. We almost all know that at this point, but what is it a practice of? What does it do? Two things: it aims to raise an Intersectional Critical Consciousness, and it does activism consistent with that consciousness to achieve the outward manifestation of its goals, equity. Intersectionality, specifically, is a way to yoke together the various forms of Critical Identity Marxism attendant to this view and this aim into a single meta-system.

Critical Consciousness is nothing more than understanding the world the way Intersectionalists do: society is actually organized by largely deterministic intersecting systems of oppression that have to be denounced in the hopes something better will emerge from the denunciation and ensuing power grab by the Intersectionalists, who, as right-thinkers, will make sure the right decisions are made and equity is achieved. Equity, on the other hand, is a little more specific. It is an administered sociopolitical economy in which shares are adjusted so that citizens are made equal. In other words, equity is socialism rebranded and broadened to include less-visible types of social and cultural, if not human, capital. Intersectionality is a cult religion that “awakens” (hence, Woke) people to this view of the man world and the attendant duties of consciousness.

As it turns out, this model of reality is not just wrong, it’s pernicious and divisive. Humans are at bottom individuals, not representatives of “intersecting” sociopolitical classes. Crenshaw’s Intersectionality rejects this vigorously. In her famous 1991 paper on the subject, “Mapping the Margins,” Crenshaw delineates that there’s a fundamental difference between the statements “I am Black” (capitalization in the original) and “I am a person who happens to be black.” The second of these, she says, puts the personhood of the individual first, rather than their class identification, which she says isn’t possible because identity-based power dynamics are imposed upon people (one can fill in that they are imposed by a racial bourgeoisie, of course). So, personhood, to Crenshaw, is inferior to racial class identity because she has bought the cultish Critical Race Theory (Race Marxism) worldview that race is the fundamental organizing principle of society, as above. Instead, “I am Black” becomes, in her words, a form of self-identifying with “a positive discourse of resistance,” which is inherently divisive (literally oppositional), class-collectivist, and intolerant, and which only makes sense by adopting her cultish mindset about race in Western (particularly American) societies. You may have noticed that it is simply not possible to disagree with Intersectional analysis because to do so, at its heart, requires questioning the stories those involved tell themselves about their identities—who they are and what it means to be human, both in general and in this world.

So that’s Intersectionality: a means of yoking together divisive identity politics (Identity Marxism) to achieve some kind of social, cultural, and political transformation directed by the cultists who think this way. It is a program to bind Marxian identity politics together to bring society to heel under the discipline of a new standard called “equity,” which it sees as a measure of and precursor to “Social Justice.”

But as I said, Intersectionality is not original to Crenshaw. Not only were various Queer Theorists using the phrasing of the “intersection of sex, gender, and sexuality” in the decade preceding her discovery, it emerged directly out of the Black Feminism school of thought in which Crenshaw participated. The idea of yoking together the various Identity Marxist approaches to identity politics—and the first recorded use of that specific term (“identity politics”)—comes from the Combahee River Collective and its manifesto (“Statement”) from 1977, published twelve years in advance of Crenshaw’s first paper on the subject. The Combahee River Collective was a group of radical socialist Black Feminists who were dedicated to transforming the feminist movement, black nationalism and black liberationism movements, and American society to their way of thinking.

The Combahee River Collective was the first group of Identity Marxists to flatly state that all forms of oppression are interlinked and operate the way that Intersectionality describes. They were also unabashed in their calls for transforming American society through the movements they were attacking for the broader cause of socialism. Crenshaw, as a Black Feminist in radical circles herself, was certainly aware of the Collective and, in fact, cites one of its participants, Angela Davis, in “Mapping the Margins” on something near to the central point. Again, though, we cannot say that the Combahee River Collective created Intersectionality because, like all Marxist ideas, it’s just a repackaging and repurposing of older ideas that eventually drag back to the Gnostic social sorcery of Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx, predominantly (three dead white, European men, one might add).

The radicals in the Combahee River Collective, including Angela Davis very directly, were themselves students of Herbert Marcuse, the most influential Critical Marxist thinker of the 20th century. Marcuse noted in all of his major works in the 1960s and 1970s that the American and Western working class would not be a suitable base for a socialist revolution because, to put it bluntly in his own words, “advanced capitalism” “delivers the goods.” The working class isn’t just made complacent and “one-dimensional” in this way but also conservative and even counter-revolutionary. Marcuse’s solution is to seek out a new “working class,” a new proletarian class that has the “vital needs” for revolution. He suggested identity politicking: the racial minorities, feminists, outsiders, and so on. Identity Marxism, including the radicalism of the Combahee River Collective and the “Intersectionality” of Kim Crenshaw, gets its start with Marcuse’s radical suggestion to abandon class identity for other types of identity.

Yet again, Marcuse was borrowing these ideas from another source—and I promise not to run this all the way back to Rousseau, Hegel, or even Marx. Marcuse was inspired by a Communist who had a decidedly different tack than Josef Stalin, whom Marcuse had come to distrust deeply. This character, who had been in turn deeply distrusted by Stalin, was running a grand Cultural Revolution in China at the time; Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. Marcuse, like many of the Western Marxists of the 1960s (cf. Paulo Freire), greatly admired what Mao was doing so much more successfully than either the disaster of Stalin or the flailing of his Soviet successor, Nikita Khrushchev. In the riots of 1968 and 1969, largely inspired by Marcuse, the people chanted the three M’s for a reason: “Marx, Mao, Marcuse! Marx, Mao, Marcuse!” The source for what we call Intersectionality today is largely attributable to Mao Zedong. It is Cultural Maoism.

Thanks to our vigorously redwashed education system in the West, few Americans or Canadians today know how Mao did what he did. Though there are lots of technical elements involved, including a swift and total takeover of all education from 1950–1952, he primarily achieved his aims through identity politics in which several different types of identity categories were bound together into a systematic program of (youth) radicalization and power acquisition—just like today.

Mao, following the Soviets, defined “the people” and its “enemies.” Among “the people” were the socialists and Communists, but also the peasants and laborers whose image the CCP used while failing to do much for them (and visiting untold calamity upon them over and over again). Also among “the people” were those Mao and the CCP considered able to be “reformed,” though they had a great deal of “struggle” ahead of them so that their thought could be reformed to Chinese socialism. The “enemies” of “the people” were myriad, including former Guomingdang officials and sympathizers, landlords, “rich” farmers (“kulaks”), and the unreformable—counterrevolutionaries, bad influences, and rightists. Mao advocated ruthless treatment and taught open, vicious hate of the “enemies” of the people but always held out the opportunity (often through brutal struggle, brainwashing, and labor) to become one of “the people” by adopting “socialist discipline” under his system of “democratic centralism” that would administer an economy that redistributed shares so that “the people” were made equal.

More specifically, Mao originally created ten identities for people: five “black” (bad) and five “red” (good, Communist). People and their children, grandchildren, and further descendants were classified and handled according to this system. The idea was primarily to pressure youth given black identities to want to renounce and destroy the “Four Olds” of society and become Maoist revolutionaries. A variety of identity campaigns, involving both carrots and sticks, were employed in the process. Denounce your old way of life and thinking publicly and repeatedly, undergo criticism, self-criticism, and struggle, denounce your father and family if they had the wrong kind of identity, pledge loyalty to Mao, help his revolutionary cadres and forces—those kinds of things could get you a ticket out of a “black” identity into a “red” one.

The goal Mao had was to enact the formula he claims he created in 1942, though it is probably a Soviet import. That program he called “unity – criticism – unity.” Create the desire for unity (just like Biden’s Democrats). When people desire to have unity, show them how they are failing to live up to the standard unity demands through criticism. Get them to self-criticize. Put them through humiliating struggle. Teach them that they’re racist and must become anti-racist and would except they lack racial humility and exhibit white fragility because they covet their own white privilege and the benefits it provides, for example. Exact confessions and apologies and promises to “do better.” Always hold out radical identities as a possible escape from some or all of the pressure, which never quite goes away (white and queer is still white—do better). Only when they die to their old selves and are reborn on the side of the oppressed (in Freire’s language, anyway) can they adopt unity “on a new basis,” which Mao called “socialist discipline.”

Today, of course, under Intersectionality, the program is the same. Straight, white, male, cis, blah, blah, blah: black identities. Ally, radical activist, change agent, queer, and all that: red identities. The goal isn’t “unity”; it’s “inclusion” and “belonging.” Those sound nicer. The program is the same. Create a desire to belong; initiate a period of struggle, criticism, and self-criticism as a cult initiation and hazing ritual; and achieve unity under a new “inclusive” standard.

What this achieved, especially thanks to his thorough and early capture of the schools, turning them into revolutionary universities and high schools, was the creation of an extremely radical youth culture that didn’t know any other standard some sixteen years after Mao first claimed power. These were called the Red Guard, and they were selected only from the ranks of the red identities. They had praise heaped upon them; they were celebrated and affirmed; and they were largely above the law in their rampant and destructive radicalism. They ransacked homes and temples, destroyed statues and art from the old culture, bullied, humiliated, and tortured wrongthinkers, sometimes to death, all with the blessing of Mao’s police. From 1966 to 1968, they ran a red terror through every corner of China, and Mao rode the terror to increasingly consolidated and unquestionable power.

In 1967, the Red Guard did what Mao had most hoped they would do. They captured, struggled, humiliated, and exiled his primary political enemy, Liu Shaoqi, who had replaced Mao when he stepped down from the head of the Party following the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward, which killed over 55 million people. With its primary functions achieved, Mao declared the Red Guard was turning too far Left and too radical, and he started having the People’s Liberation Army put them down. By late 1968, the Red Guard movement had been suppressed, with many of its participants killed by the government they had supported into power and most of the rest sent to the peasant countryside to be reeducated through farm labor in primitive conditions. The Woke “change agents” of today should take note of this fate because they are the “Red” (Rainbow) Guard of the Western Cultural Revolution.

So that’s what Intersectionality is. Intersectionality is a meta-system to yoke together all the various identity categories and create a functional pressure pump from “bad” identities to radicalized “good” ones. That is, Intersectionality is Maoism. Put another way, Intersectionality is a system for achieving what Mao referred to as “the correct handling of contradictions among the people.” See, the feminist movement is too white and needs Critical Race Theory—a contradiction among the people that must be handled. The black liberation movement was too patriarchal and needed feminism—a contradiction among the people that needed to be handled. Feminism is too trans-exclusionary and needs to be physically beaten by men in dresses and humiliated through campaigns to erase womanhood and motherhood completely—a contradiction among the people. Enemies of the people, say, “good whites,” need to be suppressed, struggled, and criticized until they “do better” or get “cancelled” from professional society—a contradiction among the people that needs to be handled.

A Note to Young Woke People

I think you’ll find what I have to say to you mostly incomprehensible, but you need to hear it.

This is what you are participating in, whether you know it or not. This is what your schools and universities and influencers are miseducating you—brainwashing you—into. Western Maoism. Maoism with American characteristics. And this is what you need to know about where it goes. The whole philosophy is based upon the formulations of GWF Hegel’s vision for how to move History to its intended “End” (the right side of history), and what Hegel said about you is this: “History uses people and then discards them.”

As a  movement, Woke believes itself to be the movement of History. History is using you to move itself. It will discard you. You know how everything in Woke philosophy is “temporal,” “spacial,” and “contingent”? So are you. You are a contingency for the Woke movement. You have your time—until you don’t. When you become useless or a hindrance to the movement of History, you will be discarded. Every Marxist and Hegelian movement in history has proceeded this way, and this one will not be different. I wish you luck with that.

What you need to understand about the people you’ve been trained to see as your “enemies,” or “transphobes,” “racists,” “fascists,” “homophobes,” or whatever else is that most of the people you think are those things are not those things at all. You have been trained to hate, allegedly in the name of “stopping hate.” These people are, by and large, trying to warn you, not trying to uphold “oppression.”

What you need to know about the people in the movement you’re supporting, including your friends in the movement, is that you’re less than disposable to them. Contingent barely covers it. The Woke movement pretends to care about you—or, worse, “people who look like you”—but it does not. It is using you so its sociopathic fringe can gain power over society, using you as cannon fodder for their unconventional political warfare apparatus. Instead of living your life, growing, learning, preparing a future, you’re doing activism, for them. And they will discard you. Will. You are worse than disposable once they get power: you’re a problem.

You are being trained by this movement to be a destabilizer. That’s what all that “disrupt and dismantle” stuff is about. Their intention is to establish a perfectly stable system with them (not most of you) on top of it, and people trained and brainwashed to be destabilizers are a problem in such a system. Mao said that himself too. He said that the handling of the people is different in the different phases of the revolution. First you encourage and support destabilizers, and then you crack down on them so that there’s total stability under the new standard. You are an asset today and will be a liability tomorrow. You will be discarded, coldly and possibly violently.

Make no mistake. This fate has awaited the “change agents” of every red revolution in history. Communist defectors have been trying to tell you for decades, longer than most of you have been alive. It will not be different in anything except method this time. If you, as Wokes, “win,” you surely lose—all but the most sociopathic and sycophantic of you, in which case you hollow yourselves out, sell your souls (if you have one left by then), and become a true monster of history.

If you don’t believe me, let me ask you: do you see any identity politics in China today? Is China Woke? Will it go Woke? No! They already did that, and that phase of their revolution is over. It is viciously suppressed there, and they laugh at you here in the West and call you baizuo, white left. They know what you are and how misinformed and misguided you are. Their operatives attempt to stoke these fires and use you because you are strategically useful to their anti-American aims, which you foolishly might share. In China, however, they’re openly encouraging patriarchy and masculinity. They’re racially ruthless. They stamp out homosexuality. Why? They did Intersectionality already, got what they wanted out of it, and discarded it (and its change agents) in favor of power. That’s your future. Look at the screen, scan your face, and smile for the government, and don’t dare signal in any way that you think anything you shouldn’t be thinking.

You have been falsely convinced that you’re the protagonists in a vast morality play called “the arc of History” and that you’re “bending it toward justice.” You’re “on the right side of History,” and that feels good—right up until the boot comes crashing down on your face. Then you’ll realize it. You are bending the arc of history, of course, if we can even indulge such a metaphor, and you’re bending it straight into a twenty-first-century gulag, whatever those will look like in our increasingly Black Mirror society. You will be “thought reformed,” or you will be discarded.

Do you want to be its guard, Agent Smith? Would you like to be its administrator? Is it worth the sale of your soul? Some of you might aspire to such a demonic station in your lives, but most of you don’t. You’ll be subjected to it instead, even as a student at an elite university.

This corruption of you and your future is happening in place of your education, which is simultaneously being degraded in every meaningful sense of the word. You’re not getting the education you could be or perhaps aren’t getting a real education at all. You’re not learning to be informed, independent adults who can answer questions about reality and navigate it successfully. You’re being taught you have to defer to some kind of expert to answer a question like “what is a woman?”

Meanwhile, you’re getting degrees that are increasingly being seen as liabilities, not assets, in the working world outside of the most corrupt megacorporate sector that is our new Western Soviet—a council of “stakeholders” that knows “the Science of Right Human Relations” and the keys to “Sustainable Development.” Employers are increasingly suspecting you’re probably Woke, radically Leftist, entitled, unlikely to work hard, likely to create a hostile working environment, underskilled, and likely to sue if fired even on perfectly solid grounds. You’re a liability to them, and many of them are only still hiring you because they have to to keep their place in the corrupt corporate scoring schemes that control the way business is now done in the West. If that gives way, who are you? If it succeeds and you participate in it, what are you?

Make no mistake, if this system loses, you lose because your university tried to make you “change agents” and “global citizens” instead of educated adults. If this system wins, you lose because you know too much and are too big a problem. Your only option will be to sell your soul to it, and how much is that worth to you?

Think I’m kidding? Mao said, “not to have correct political opinions is like not having a soul.” Think about that and what this is costing you, whether you participate or cower against it. Doesn’t that ring true? That’s what you’re sacrificing.

So, why you? Because you happen to be the age you are at the worst time in Western history to be the age you are, and because many of you come from wealth and status and other resources the System covets and requires to succeed (they’re not really against “privilege,” they just want to redistribute and repurpose it). They need those resources. They need your enthusiasm and zeal. They need your impressionable minds. They need the future citizens and the future leaders, but History uses people and then discards them. They don’t need you for long, and they only need you for specific purposes, then you will be corrected or discarded, unless you choose to come off worse by selling out.

My message to you about intersectionality is simple. You need to know what you’re really involved in, stop participating, deprogram yourself and your friends, and start fighting for the blessings of Liberty that allowed you to have the privilege to think this way in the first place. You can and might lose it—the first generation in American history to face the loss of liberty, and you’re enslaving yourselves. “Liberation” movements are lies. Mao called his army—the same one he dispatched to destroy your counterparts in the Red Guard—the People’s Liberation Army for a reason. You need to fight for Liberty. Your chains are forged by frauds and locked only in your heads.

The oldest recorded cautionary tale in human history, the story of the Serpent and Eve in the third chapter of Genesis, warns you about liberation, whether you are religious or not. Liberation is a destructive lie. You are the future. Your choices matter. Choose better.

community logo
Join the New Discourses Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
American Maoism | James Lindsay

With Liberty & Justice For All, Session 1 of 3

The Left moves operationally and according to a battle logic known as “dialectical political warfare.” The dialectic is the operating system of the Left, and it works by marrying a truth to a lie. Political warfare is a method of conducting warfare in which political means are used with hostile intent to get an enemy to behave in a desired fashion—propaganda is a great example. Perhaps the greatest dialectical political warfare tactician in human history is the monstrous figure of Mao Zedong, Communist dictator of China until his death in 1976. His tactics and cultural revolution are a testament to the fearsome and destructive power of dialectical political warfare, and they’re happening here in America and throughout the West today. Where Mao claimed to be employing “Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics” in China, the “Woke” and environmental “Sustainability” movements we face in the present should be ...

The Force Field That Prevents Marxism | James Lindsay
The 100-Year-Long Spear Behind Critical Race Theory | James Lindsay
Resilience & Woke Brainwashing

New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 65

One of the hottest topics in education (and beyond) right now is "resilience." Youth mental health initiatives are being launched and entrenched all over the country, not just through school counseling but also through Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) initiatives, and their goal almost always includes "fostering emotional resilience." What is meant by "resilience" in the Woke Marxist context, though? We know it must mean something. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay draws from a UNESCO source ( ) and explains that "resilience" refers to the opposite of "fragility," which means taking your brainwashing well. Join him to understand why these initiatives are not at all what they seem to sell themselves to be.

Resilience & Woke Brainwashing
Marx's Strawman of Capitalism

New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 64

Capitalism is a Marxist creation. It sounds crazy to say that, but Marxists don't mean competitive market economies or even free-market economies when they say "capitalism." They mean an overarching ideology of limitless capital accumulation as the fundamental organizing principle of society, which most people who promote "capitalism" wouldn't recognize as what they mean by the term at all. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets, host James Lindsay shows you in their own words what Marxists mean by the word "capitalism," which is a revealing and ridiculous strawman of market economics. Join him to learn all about it.

Marx's Strawman of Capitalism
Learning and Countering Leftist Strategy

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 127

Leftism, including Marxism, is operational. It is strategic. It knows what it's doing and how to do it. It might look crazy, but that's deliberate. In fact, Leftists proudly publish and disseminate activist guides for their agenda like the book Beautiful Trouble ( ) that spell out for anyone how to do "transformative" activism through deliberate and strategic troublemaking. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay ties together three activist principles from Beautiful Trouble with a large number of relevant contemporary examples to make clear how Marxist Leftism works and is working in our current American Cultural Revolution. He starts by laying out that "Your Target's Reaction Is Your Real Action," ( ) explains how that progresses through "Put Your Target in a Decision Dilemma," ...

Learning and Countering Leftist Strategy

We're not eating bugs, and we don't care about "emissions."

post photo preview

I'll take "ships that sailed," for $800, Alex.

post photo preview

Why I’m a proud conspiracy theorist..
Russell Brand is targeted by the UK, WEF, Pfizer, and the UN most likely..

post photo preview
Rousing the American Judiciary

Woke Marxism undermines law, and for it to succeed, it must pervert law to advance its own ends. So far, it has been extremely successful at this, from the Critical Legal Theory movement in the 1970s and 1980s through Critical Race Theory and outright legal and judicial activism. If our remaining judiciary remains unaware of the infiltration and subversion, we will probably lose our country. If it wakes up and discharges its duty more… judiciously… we can save our country the same way they’re trying to take it from us: without firing a shot, as the saying goes. Such is the power of law, and such is the power of judges who adjudicate on the law.

The issue is that judges are very busy and asked to render legal judgments on an array of cases filled with subject matter in which they are not, cannot be, and should not be expected to be experts. This represents a major crack in the legal and judicial armor that’s susceptible to legal subversion. A great deal of this subversion has already taken place in both low courts and high, though we’re also seeing a wakening judiciary quickly starting to realize the problem and its underlying nature. This rousing of the judiciary is patently visible in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, especially in light of Justice Clarence Thomas’s remarks about misapplications of substantive due process in that and other decisions. We see it also in the recent Supreme Court decision about racial discrimination in college admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, challenging the entire basis for the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” industry by reversing much of the logic of Bakke v. Board of Regents and Grutter v. Bollinger. The awakening of the American judiciary seems to be arriving just in the nick of time.

The fact is, law is being subverted and has been subverted. This has been the result of decades of intentional activism. Aside from the direct legal activism resulting from activists taking the roles of judges, another form of subversive legal activism exists as well, one that exploits the gap in the judicial armor in two ways: by having hijacked language and expertise. Busy judges have to go significantly on domain-specific information that they are given, prepared through testimony and amicus briefs and the likes. Their domain is the law, not necessarily the domains upon which they have to adjudicate the law. In that breech, the lies of activists flourish.

This activism is definitely intentional and purposed, and its purpose is to undermine the institution of American law and turn it toward Marxist ends. Going back to one of the fathers of Western Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, Marxist strategy in Western nations has been largely subversive rather than overt. Gramsci described a Western world that is ruled over not merely by a class of people but by a powerful cultural force he alleged is produced and maintained by those people for their own benefit. This force he called “cultural hegemony,” and he said the only way to bring socialism (and Marxism) to the West would be to infiltrate and subvert the cultural institutions that generate cultural hegemony and turn them from within so they instead produce a “counter-hegemonic” view that can then trickle out into the cultural milieu and make it ripe for revolution. The five domains Gramsci identified for infiltration and capture are religion, family, education, media, and law, with a special emphasis on education because all professional activities are downstream from schooling.

Gramsci wrote this in the 1920s and 1930s, and the thesis was picked up by Rudi Deutshke, who called it “the long march through the institutions” in the mid-1960s, and Critical Marxist thought-leader Herbert Marcuse, who demanded this march from his activists in his 1972 work Counterrevolution and Revolt, which has set the stage for Western Marxist activism ever since. The goal was to infiltrate the institutions and turn them from within. Simultaneously, using Marcuse’s Critical Theory, which he adapted from his Frankfurt School colleague Max Horkheimer, the entire fabric of Western Civilization and culture was to be hauled into “ruthless criticism” and turned inside-out.

Today, the results of these two initiatives—the Long March and Critical Theory—we have a credentialed expert class and expert-credentialing apparatus (the higher education system and professional organizations) that are effectively completely captured. When students pass through, even if they are not taken in by the Critical Marxist, or Woke, perspective, they’re flooded with it such that it no longer rankles their sensibilities when they encounter it later in life. Meanwhile, the professional class of experts who might show up to inform the judiciary on crucial cases is filled with purposed and well-funded activists who make sure to render their fake-expert opinion in the best professionalese in every case of relevant importance. If judges aren’t aware that expertise itself has been tainted, they’re likely to fall for the distortions of this bogus professional cadre and the bogus studies they use to back their activist claims. Justice, the domain of the judiciary, is the victim.

This professionalese is also laced with activist language, words that have obvious everyday meanings but specialized activist meanings that are easily equivocated upon. Some key examples are words like “diversity” (which actually means “expert in Diversity as a theory”), “inclusion” (which means excluding and censoring anything that can be construed to create a disparate impact of exclusion of discrimination), “hate” (which means not giving the activists their way), “harm” (which means the psychological discomfort experienced by the activists when not getting their way), and “trauma” (which means the result of the injuries of “hate” and “harm” as described above). These words are myriad, if not legion (in the biblical sense). Without awareness that Critical Marxism has equivocated much of the language itself—take “diversity” in the context of the Bakke and Grutter decisions, for example—rendering sound adjudications is simply impossible.

Our judiciary, insofar as it still cares about this country, needs to be made aware of these two gaps so that prudence and discernment can return to their rightful positions in rendering judgments on these important cases. I’m in no way calling for judges to become experts in “Woke” language or ideological subversion. Instead, I’m calling for a growing sense of awareness that both language and expertise are at least partly captured and being weaponized so that sound judgments cannot be made on prima facie understanding of expert testimony or the plain meanings of words. The experts are often fake, the expertise manufactured to purpose, and plain meaning of words plainly not meant.

While both of these issues are extremely important for our nation’s judges to be aware of and to take into account when rendering their decisions, the issue of captured, equivocal language is particularly important. Smart people—such as judges are—are some of the most susceptible to the wizardry of equivocal language because they’re the most likely to be certain they already know the plain meanings of many words. Furthermore, simply through these linguistic equivocations, the entire meaning of a law or ruling can be changed or even reversed without changing any of the relevant wording. As an example, the Fourth Amendment protects against government seizure of property, but it does not protect against the seizure of stolen property. If, through “land acknowledgements” or whatever other Marxist manipulation, a judge can be convinced that the property held by some entity is in fact “stolen,” whether from indigenous tribes or through the illegitimate accumulation of capital through exploitation of Man or Nature, the Fourth Amendment would cease to protect that property from seizure—a trick Communist countries used again and again in their own legal contexts. All of contract law is vulnerable to this kind of linguistic exploitation as well once certain activist clauses are inserted into the contract itself or the underlying set of assumptions upon which it is based.

If we are going to save this nation and restore and establish a fair Rule of Law, the Gramscian infiltration and subversion of law must be stopped. Much of this subversion takes place by taking advantage of a judiciary that does not fully comprehend how tainted expertise, expert testimony, and language are as a result of decades of Critical activism. My hope is that this essay sounds an alarm and starts a movement to shake them awake before it’s too late.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Queer Education Is Child Abuse

Queer Theory, which nearly all of the gender and sexuality education in America is ultimately based upon, has nothing to do with "LGBT" education. This is evident to anyone who reads it, not only because its goals are diametrically opposed to LGBT acceptance and normalization in our society, but because they say so themselves very specifically over and over again. For one example, quoting Emily Drabinski, the openly politically Queer and Marxist current president of the American Library Association, from her 2013 paper “Queering the Catalog,” “Queer theory is distinct from lesbian and gay studies.” It could hardly be more blunt. She adds, “where lesbian and gay studies takes gender and sexual identities as its object of study, queer theory is interested in how those identities come discursively and socially into being and the kind of work they do in the world.” Her conclusion? “Lesbian and gay studies is concerned with what homosexuality is. Queer theory is concerned with what homosexuality does.”

What does Drabinski mean about “the kind of work they do in the world” when referring to “queer identities” and what they “do in the world”? She means activism. Nothing more and nothing less.

“Queer” is not an identity like gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It is by definition an explicitly and intentionally activist identity. That is, it is a political stance, not a fact of who someone is—in fact, not an identity at all. Again, this is by definition in Queer Theory. As David Halperin defined it in his 1995 book Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, a few pages away from a rousing discussion of the transformative potential of “anal fisting” as an ideal sex act,

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

Halperin takes great pains to distinguish homosexual being from political homosexual doing and insists that the latter is all of and exactly what Michel Foucault meant by the term “the homosexual,” which he often employed. As he explains, “[Queerness] can now be constituted not substantively but oppositionally, not by what it is but by where it is and how it operates. Those who knowingly occupy such a marginal location, who assume a de-essentialized identity that is purely positional in character, are properly speaking not gay but queer.” Drabinski obviously drew upon this view to form her own.

And what is it Queer Theory does? It disrupts. By definition. The definition of “Queer” in Queer Theory, as we see, is that which resists and challenges all norms and expectations of normalcy. So bringing into education materials based in Queer Theory, including so-called gender-critical perspectives that separate sex and gender as though they are completely different phenomena, is meant to make children activists in this disruptive, destabilizing mode of misunderstanding the world. That has no place in our educational institutions, especially when it’s happening outside of parental knowledge and approval.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here is what the educational paper “Drag Pedagogy,” arguing for Drag Queen Story Hours in schools, says about the matter: “Ultimately, the authors propose that ‘drag pedagogy’ provides a performative approach to queer pedagogy that is not simply about LGBT lives, but living queerly.” Those italics are in the original. The authors elaborate upon this notion of “living queerly” by stating,

It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.

In my professional work, I have struggled to find a word more adequate than the officially disallowed word “grooming” to describe “a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship” based around “living queerly.” These unacceptable projects, hidden behind a street-slang pun, are core objectives of Queer Theory in education, described unambiguously in their own words. “As an art form,” they tell us, “drag is all about bending and breaking the rules, and so its aims are totally different from a normative classroom.” Because, they insist, “In a broader context, fostering collective unruliness also helps children to understand that they can have a hand in changing their environment.” This, they also tell us, allows both drag performers and children to “recognize the arbitrariness of rules,” engage in “queer play,” and “feel [their] fantasies.”

Queer educators damn themselves with their own words, so I'll quote one more to illustrate one more core, often-repeated goal of Queer Theory in education. As explained by Hannah Dyer, a Canadian researcher, in a paper titled “Queer Futurity and Childhood Innocence,” the innocence of childhood and the established understanding of child developmental psychology all needs to be Queered. She writes, “Here, I help to illustrate how some of the affective, libidinal, epistemological, and political insistences on childhood innocence can injure the child’s development and offer a new mode of analytical inquiry that insists upon embracing the child’s queer curiosity and patterns of growth.” What is that about? This paper is specifically about and contains a section heading on “Queering the child’s innocence,” which is perfectly in line with what the “drag pedagogy” people want. Queer Theory in education is therefore so destructive that it aims to rewrite the innocence of childhood as an evil that prevents children from developing “queer curiosity and patterns of growth.”

None of this is remotely appropriate, and the inherently activist position it takes and seeks to instill into our children (through damaging them) is in many respects the least of its problems. It is, at the least, deranged, though it is more properly cultic and evil. It is far past time to give these damaging materials and the people pushing them into our schools the benefit of the doubt. It is long past time to say “no more, not any of it; it all has to go.”

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Reformers: A New Film About the Grievance Studies Affair

The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant. Back in 2017 and 2018, when we did it, it was obvious that the part of academia sometimes called the “theoretical humanities” had been given over essentially wholly to what we dubbed Grievance Studies—that is, Woke Identity Marxism. We also saw worrying trends in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and all of the social sciences, but at the time it was considered extremely controversial and even unfair to suggest the “soft sciences” were infected with Woke Marxism. Today, that’s completely out the window. Everything is touched by the putrefying finger of Woke corruption. Major medical journals, engineering journals, virtually all education journals, and even premier science journals like Nature routinely publish undeniably Woke “scholarship.”

In the Grievance Studies Affair, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose, and I set out to demonstrate that Woke “scholarship” is trash. We recognized the peer-review system has a simple, catastrophic weakness: political corruptibility through the corruption of the key gatekeepers of the system, academic “peers.”

Though we didn’t understand the Gramscian, Maoist, Marcusian strategy of the Long March Through the Institutions or its mechanisms at the time, we certainly could see the fruits of it in operation in the corner of scholarship we targeted. In short, through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the halls of academe were increasingly filled with neo-Marxist and postmodern activists who reliably place their social and political prejudices ahead of any pursuit of truth. We perceived that those ideological biases were a key element in getting peer-reviewed literature into academic journals in a wide array of theoretical disciplines, and we took advantage of that as a means of trying to expose it.

Through whatever set of chances on our journey, a rather talented documentary filmmaker named Mike Nayna got brought into our very narrow inner circle early in the project’s development, and he did what documentarians do, started recording and documenting everything. He thought we were crazy at first but that it might be a fun side project. Little did he realize.

Now, after several years of fighting his own Woke industry and preposterous delays and restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic so he could get the documentary series he was producing together and out into the world, his time to tell this story has arrived. It is perhaps bizarrely fortuitous—maybe providential—that these delays hindered the delivery of this important documentary. What wasn’t easily visible a few years ago is blatantly obvious now, and it demands the kind of explanation this documentary can provide right when people are the most ready to see it.

Flatteringly, Nayna calls the multi-part documentary The Reformers, nodding to the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation that challenged the corruption of the late Medieval Catholic Church. Nayna rightly sensed all along that the problem in our universities is that they have become corrupt, inbred purveyors of a religious doctrine posing as social science—one badly in need of a Lutheran hammer on the door.

In fact, this assessment is exactly right. Our universities have become increasingly insular seminaries for a neo-Gnostic cult religion that passes itself off as social science and theory. To flatter them can win you indulgences, and to disagree with them will lead them to visit purgatory upon you in the form of personal and professional inquisitorial “struggle.” To say the whole apparatus needs reforming is understatement bordering on the absurd.

Personally, it’s an interesting experience for me to look back on that pivotal phase of my life, including a lot of footage I didn’t know Nayna had taken and that I’ve never seen. The story, ranging from our humble and rather stupid beginnings through to our eventual success and vindication is both hilarious and harrowing. I hope you’ll find it as informative and entertaining as I did.

All that said, though, don’t miss the point. The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant. Entire institutions, including national governments, huge megacorporations, global NGOs, the entire establishment media apparatus, and most terribly our universities and schools are wholly in thrall to the fraudulent ideology we exposed almost five years ago. Little of what we’re going through now is based in reality, and the arc of this documentary series makes that undeniable in a way that simply wasn’t visible when the story first broke in 2018.

The Reformers exposes what we all know about the corrupt academic scholarship misshaping our world: it’s all based on nothing more than the prejudice and opinion of activists and activist scholars who have hijacked academia.

Watch Episode 2 of The Reformers here, on Mike Nayna’s Substack.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals