“Domela” has been a longtime
supporter of the Alternative Left page on Facebook, as well as the only other
administrator of that page besides myself.
He recently posted this status update:
I'm afraid I'm getting exhausted. We
had the very successful Red Pill movie, we had some 'rethinking' after Trump's
victory (or rather Hillary's defeat), we had Mark Lilla, we had Arlene
Hochschild, we had Laci Green's 'conversion', we had the start of the Alt Left,
Quillette and Areo, we had some mainstream media admitting MeToo didn’t work
out as expected, and this is not all - you'd think at least something would
happen. But not only reigns the regressive left/IdPol/intersectional
feminism/SJW's, however you call them, the mainstream liberal and progressive
media - a decent discussion hasn’t even started in all that time. Most people
don't even know there exists some anti-SJW-left. Quite a few people think
anti-SJW and Alt Right are the same. I'm afraid IdPol will either remain for a
long time or be crushed by the right - and what left will there be left then?
I understand the frustration. While
the page has grown in its almost two years of existence, it’s fan base has
stalled at about the 2,200 followers mark. Similarly minded groups and pages,
most of whom have fewer members and followers than that, have similarly
stagnated. When one considers that there are many regressive left and
intersectional feminist pages with many hundreds thousands of fans, or even
tankie pages with a few tens of thousands, this seems discouraging.
The best lack all conviction, while
the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Yeat’s words, nearly a century old
now, seem as applicable to today as they were upon their writing. The internet
is not a reasonable place, and it’s getting more irrational all the time, or so
it seems. I would like to think that there’s a silent majority who shares our
distaste for all of this, but that is not a hope upon which we can or should
bank. Silent majorities have a way of remaining silent.
It’s worth reflecting then, on how
things came to this juncture. For many people online, the “SJWs” were something
that sprung seemingly from nowhere in roughly President Obama’s second term, or
thereabouts. Many people were redpilled during the now infamous gamergate
controversy, or by the alternative media that seemed to spin out of that
debacle. After exposure to Milo, Sargon of Akkad or more recently Jordan
Peterson, or some personality like that. The truth is, the post-gamergate era
was the time when the SJWs came to replace the religious right as the favorite
punching bag of the online skeptic community, not when the SJWs first appeared.
Who and what the SJWs are go back
much, much farther than that, and the fact that we must now contend with a
popular culture that’s been systemically infected with intersectional feminism to
a degree that would make the propaganda ministry of your favorite historical
totalitarian state look sloppy is the price we must all now pay for decades of
ignorance and complacency in the face of an insidious threat that first grew inside
the academy, then subsequently metastasized outside it, over several decades.
The intersectional feminist movement
– a hodgepodge of Marxist influence, German critical theory, French
post structuralism and, of course, the new identity rooted social movements that
arose out of the new left of the 1960s was aided and abetted by a perfect storm
of factors in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that
made it uniquely situated to become the ideological powerhouse that it has, and
the
social force to beat in the first half of the 21st century.
They also demonstrated an unparalleled
savvy in their overarching strategy, showing acute knowledge of where power
really lies in this meritocratic and technocratic society we’ve become, and how
to put pressure on those centers of power – both corporate and government, both
academic and media, to get the results they want. Additionally, they exploited
the knowledge of language, philosophy and media that they studied in the post
secondary institutions that they gradually gained influence within. Perhaps
most significantly, they faced minimal opposition, and those who stood to lose
the most as a result of intersectional feminist ascendency consistently
demonstrated ineptness and complacency in the face of its rise.
Each of these points must be
considered on its own.
It’s been suggested that the women’s
movement has certain structural advantages rooted in gender dynamics that gave
them enormous advantages almost right from the outset. Perhaps it’s the case
that men are naturally more defensive and protective of women than they are of
one another, for any number of reasons. Instinct to protect the bearers of the
next generation. Instinct to cater to selective mates who wielded the considerable
power of sexual selection. Perhaps since mothers are the primary caregivers of
humans from birth, they have a subconscious association with moral authority
that men do not. None of these can be proven, mind you, but all are plausible.
The intersectional feminist movement
of our time was the chief beneficiary of two crucial philosophical developments
in the last half century: the decline of traditional religiosity in the west –
a process that had been going on for two hundred years but really kicked into
high gear during and after the counterculture of the 1960s, and the decline of
socialism as the main form of protest in the west that began in the 1970s and
was greatly accelerated by the victories of Reagan, Thatcher and
neoconservatism more generally during the 1980s.
Intersectional feminism’s
moralism, sexual puritanism and brother’s-keeper – or should I say sister’s
keeper – mentality made it a logical successor to traditionalist religion,
while its egalitarianism, revolutionary romanticism and valorization of
militant protest made it a logical successor to socialism. Religion and
socialism alike postulated a Manichean, almost apocalyptic world view wherein
goodness and decency wage war against evil and corruption for world domination,
lending excitement and purpose to the lives of those who adopt these world
views. Together, religion and socialism were big shoes to fill, and you have to
hand it to intersectional feminism for so successfully stepping into both.
Feminists emphasized education and
consciousness raising almost right from the outset. They learned well from their
Frankfurt School and Marxist-Leninist predecessors, and would go on to succeed where
they failed. Unlike their opponents, whom I'll discuss shortly, intersectional feminists are a disciplined movement who keep their eye on the prize and have deeply internalized a culture of solidarity, as opposed to the culture of every-man-for-himself individualism that characterizes their rivals. They don't waste time quibbling over insignificant details, like you see among libertarians and the old left. They know that mutual support is what is going to win in the long run. Intersectional feminists have no problems getting signatures on petitions and bodies out to protest. Their calls for boycotts have teeth, and are feared in the broader business community. The so called twitter mob is every artist's object of dread. They are savvy and adept at using and dealing with the media. Cultural libertarians seldom even think about these kinds of things except when they're caught on the business end of them, and are caught flat footed by them every time.
The feminist transformation of the academy in the 1980s, in
alliance with groups representing minority groups, was the successful
culmination of the infamous long march through the institutions proposed by new
left and so called cultural Marxist theorists during and even prior to the
1960s, even as Marxism itself was unraveling in Russia and in clear retreat in
China. Their success in the academy goes well beyond simply instituting women’s
studies courses. Theories surrounding marginalization and oppression, well as
the social construction of gender would come to permeate the entire academy,
and even influence the administration and governance of academia at an institutional
level.
Indeed much of third wave feminism’s
entire doctrine revolved around ensuring its magisterium both inside the
academy and without. They argued, based on the ideas of the French philosophers,
that there’s no real such thing as a single objective reality binding on everyone.
The means whereby man acquired and applied knowledge was deemed to be socially
constructed, and typically done so for the benefit of the privileged at the
expense of the marginalized. This legitimized and enabled a strategy of dismissing
and handwaving facts and arguments they do not like based on the identity of
the source.
They argued that their marginalized
and oppressed status made it so that statements that offended them or
threatened their world view were actually forms of oppression. This legitimized
tactics of censorship. They argued that bigotry and hatred were really about
power, which they by definition did not have, so as to legitimize double
standards that worked to their advantage. They argued that the personal was
political, and that liberal claims of institutional impartiality were mere
rationalizations for leaving privilege and power unchallenged in many spheres
of human endeavor. This legitimized the politicization of people’s private
lives and personal choices, the imposition of political indoctrination into all
forms of media, and legitimized demands to dispense with due process for those
accused of ideological offenses – all of these being clear hallmarks of
totalitarianism, albeit one much softer than what was seen in Germany and
Russia in the 30s. For now.
This ideological movement made
academia its first target, and displayed keen Machiavellian adeptness in doing so. For it is in
the academy that those who will graduate into positions of influence are
instructed and credentialed. Once feminist ideological hegemony was normalized
in the academy – or at least some branches of it - and backed up by the threat
of a potentially career ruining harassment or hate speech allegation, media,
law, administration and other important and influential areas of human endeavor
soon followed suit.
This means of acquiring cultural
influence must be contrasted with the techniques of feminism’s ideological
rivals. Conservatives both fiscal and religious focused primarily on winning
contests for electoral office. Which they did quite frequently. But despite
their exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues to win those elections,
the right wing had no interest in waging a genuine culture war outside some
parts of red state America. Indeed, the economic liberalization that was their
true priority did as much to help the rising identitarian left as
developments in academia did. Capital thrived from open borders and immigration,
and valued women, as men, much more as workers and consumers than as
homemakers.
As it was, the intersectional left developed networks of NGOs,
non-profit organizations, lobby groups, media relations strategists and even
media outlets that controlled and framed the debate in their areas of focus,
and though there were occasional concerns raised over what was happening in
academia, the right was largely content to leave the intersectionalists alone
in favor of economic and foreign policy issues that were their greater
priorities in any event.
Libertarians were quick to adopt new
technology, and there focus on using rational argument and debate to sway
others to their world view. The embryonic men’s rights, neoreactionary and
alt-right movements likewise focused on using the internet to preach their
faiths, largely to the already converted. While they were doing this, however,
the intersectional social justice movements were acquiring increased influence
and in some cases even outright control over the very forums in which these
debates would be taking place. It’s no secret that moderation on most social
media platforms skews heavily in favor of the cultural left, to say nothing of
the sheer volume of blogs and online news outlets that they would acquire.
So the
intersectional cultural left, who had no faith in the concept of open debate
and rational discourse as it was, since these were little more than apologetics
for white male privilege and bigotry as far as they were concerned, also had no
reason and no motivation to engage in any kind of dialogue with their
opponents. All such exchanges were really just “power discourses” anyway, so
why debate when you can insult, or ban? When they do interact with their opponents, intersectional feminists go hard on the offensive, their entire demeanor bent on establishing dominance and their emotional inflections calculated to control the milieu by creating awkward situations that put their rivals on the defensive. They are adept framing the debate and defining the terms of engagement - almost always implicitly and never directly, and are exceptionally good at verbal subterfuge.
Liberals and progressives had little
motivation to dispute with the intersectionalists from the outset. Why should
they? They wanted and valued the same things after all, didn’t they? The SJW
movements were shielded to a considerable degree by the fact that they
represented, or professed to represent, the interests of the oppressed and
marginalized. Shouldn’t progressives support this? This is hard to fight
against without looking like a bully. Especially during eras of conservative ascendency
in the political, economic and foreign policy spheres. Eras such as our own.
Why even bother fighting the SJWs at all? Didn’t we have so much bigger fish to
fry when George W. Bush was president, or while the Tea Party was taking over
congress? To say nothing of Donald Trump and the bitter reactionaries that
helped put him in the White House? While certain aspects of the intersectional
feminist, SJW movements might be distasteful, can and should these not be
overlooked and forgiven in light of the real problems marginalized people deal
with, and in light of the vastly greater threats posed by corporate dominance
of politics, rampant pork-barrel militarism and right wing demagogues in real
positions of power?
The answer, I think, is that this is
precisely why we must carry on the fight against the SJWs. Otherwise, even a
best possible case outcome will be no real victory. What good does it do to
defeat the conservatives when your own side isn’t really that different from
them fundamentally? We already see this in terms of how cozy the SJWs really
are with corporate power. How preferable have Silicon Valley and Hollywood
really shown themselves to be compared to Wall Street and the DC lobbying
establishment? When you’re under the thumb of corporate domination, what does
it matter if your overlords are women or people of color, or whether you are
fired for questioning your employer’s diversity policies as opposed to fired
for being a socialist?
A core premise, perhaps the core
premise of alternative left thought bears repeating here: the dominion of
identity politics over discourse on the left invisiblizes economic inequality
and class struggle. If we see power and privilege entirely in terms of race and
gender, we don’t see it in terms of concentration of capital and the subsequent
access to real power this allows. There can therefore be no meaningful
challenge to the power of capital without a challenge to identity politics.
That is why socialists and trade unionists led the charge against racism and
sexism to begin with. Now we must lead the charge against coopted and
compromised anti-racism and feminism for the same reasons.
The long and the short of it is that
a “liberalism” that is not at all liberal might as well be conservatism. If the
right wing in drag doesn’t seem that preferable to the right wing in
pinstripes, or army fatigues, or Klan robes, that’s because it isn’t.
The alternative left will speak out
against leftist IdPol because it must. If we do not, we leave a fight that we
know must be fought for others to eventually take up. It will be a long and
difficult task, given the factors I’ve listed previously. But it is not a matter
in which the believers in democracy and any kind of real, meaningful social justice,
have a real choice.
I leave you with the words of
Winston Churchill – hardly an exemplar of the alternative left but someone who
nevertheless understood what it meant to face hard choices:
We have before us an ordeal of the
most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and
suffering. You ask what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea,
land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us:
to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable
catalogue of human crime. You ask what is our aim? I can answer only one word:
Victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however
long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival …
Frustration and heartbreaks abound
in the future. We will continue to be swarmed by peevish and snarky online trolls, who think "you just can't get laid" and similar middle school level stupidity somehow constitutes an argument. Apparently it does, when woke college chicks do it. There will be many more Count Dankulas and James Damores, many
more frivolous MeToo claims, repressive legislative initiatives, revolting
Guardian and HuffPost columns, many more ridiculous college deplatformings and “anti-whiteness”
seminars. Worse, there will likely be
more Rotherham and Telford sex abuse rings, and more scapegoating of white
males and masculinity more generally for these horrors. And terribly, my heart
turns to ashes when I think of the mounting horror in South Africa, where the threat
of white genocide is no mere alt-right paranoid fantasy but a possibility that’s
all too real.
Yet despite all that, we do not face
the monstrous tyranny that the British faced in 1940. Plus, in the end, the intersectional feminist world view is untenable. These are the people trying to square pro feminist and pro LGBT politics with mass Islamic immigration, after all. So for that, among other reasons, we have had
the Red Pill movie, some 'rethinking' after Trump's victory (or rather
Hillary's defeat), Mark Lilla, Arlene Hochschild, Laci Green's 'conversion',
Quillette and Areo, some mainstream media admitting MeToo didn’t work out as
expected. We also have Sargon and his liberalist initiative, we have the
startling successes of the likes of Jordan Peterson.
None of these perfect or
even ideal. But they are to us what Churchill was to the world in 1940: exponentially better than what they are up against. As Clement Attlee - a man who I think embodies alt-left ideals perhaps better than anyone - joined Churchill's wartime cabinet, so too must we join with the Sargons and Jordan Petersons of the current cultural landscape until the greater enemy is subdued.
We have the intellectual dark web, an assortment of YouTube
and alternative media personalities and of course my own often lonely,
frustratingly dim voice, and the voices of my fellow alt-leftists on social
media and elsewhere in the midst of all of this. Voices too often drowned out
in the cacophony of the demands of our lives offline, but voices prepared to
raise in protest none the less. Every single one counts. Yet just four short years ago, we had absolutely
none of even this. Given the head start the SJW regressive left had, and the
advantages they continue to have, this is all together quite impressive. Little
by little does the trick. But most outrageously, SJWs wear their smugness and disdain for rival schools of thought on their sleeve. Their internal movement cultures are rife with competitive posturing and virtue signalling, and the movement seems to thrive on calling out the ideologically impure as a means of establishing interpersonal dominance. This is clearly not sustainable. People will sooner or later come to resent the expectation that they tow the ideological line out of fear of being branded a racist, misogynist, basket of deplorables or the like. Sooner or later, people will rebel and that's definitely what we've been seeing.
Churchill then concludes his speech
thus:
But I take up my task with
buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail
among men .. come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.
Follow Ernest Everhard on these formats:
Ernest Everhard on Facebook.
Alternative Left on Facebook.
Ernest Everhard on Twitter.
Samizdat Broadcasts on YouTube.
