Cuckservative Mansplaining

Here's one more example to illustrate how out of touch cuckservatives and Straussians are. "Let me explain your subjective reality to you."

“The key to understanding identity politics is to realize that it is primarily a politics of oppression and victimization rather than identity.” - David Azerrad https://t.co/rSj6l5s7pI

— The American Mind (@theammind) May 18, 2020

The Promises and Perils of Identity Politics by David Azerrad

The author claims:

Straightforward political tribalism does not celebrate victimization. Nor does it deny purported victimizers the right to have their own tribe.

According to whom? And since when do the revolutionaries deny victimizers the right to have their own tribe, except as a punishment for their sins, individual and collective? The oppressors who are responsible for intersectionality are definitely a group with common characteristics, and they are denied the pursuit of their own interests because when they have done so historically, it has been at the expense of other groups. This is what the revolutionaries would say, and the author himself recognizes this:

The cornerstone of the identitarian worldview is the claim that America, contrary to its egalitarian professions of faith, is at its core a supremacist regime that oppresses certain groups. The oppressed groups vary according to the different identitarian movements—black people, women, Hispanics, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc.—although most recognize the oppression of other groups and proclaim solidarity with them. This struggle between the oppressors and those whom they oppress on the basis of their identity is the most fundamental dimension of reality.

Identity politics is dependent upon the state, and most are looking not to replace the state or for separation, but for the state to favor them. Because this, for them, is justice. So, contrary to his claim that Malcolm X represents the beginnings of identity politics, identity politics go further back, and the civil rights movement can be understand as either being the beginning or a part of it, depending on who one sees as being the cause of the genesis of the movement. Malcolm X might, in his earlier leftist phase, be seen as partly embracing identity politics, but his mature view was one of black independence and upholding in-group accountability or a form of black nationalism. In that respect he was a greater threat to the state than the leaders of the civil rights movement, who helped increase the powers of the political authorities at all levels.

I'm not going to fisk the article any further, though there is some cucking to be mentioned:

There is therefore an urgent need to demarcate the boundaries of identity politics and to distinguish it from just attempts by women and minorities to petition their government for a redress of legitimate grievances.

But the author has no basis for saying that these groups who identify with the members of what they see to be the dominant group are wrong in doing so.

As such, identity politics is bound to generate a backlash. That pushback may take one of two forms: the re-embrace of the patriotic, assimilationist, color-blind creed which promises liberty and justice for all or the rise of white identitarianism. Should the latter ever come to pass, then the identitarians will have actually produced that which they claim to oppose. American politics would be reduced to a struggle for power between various identity groups.

Civic nationalism or ethnic nationalism? Which is more in line with the natural law?

Identity politics should be rejected not because it demands justice for those who have been unjustly treated, but because it poses a threat to republican self-government by corroding patriotic ties, fostering hatred, promoting cultural separatism, and demanding special treatment rather than equality under the law.

This fake conservative would have us believe that republican self-government actually exists in this country. Identity politics poses a threat to civic nationalism and the power of the state, in so far as it has the potential to intentionally fragment the country. But those who are exploiting identity politics do not want a break-up of the system, merely an adjustment to the system so that power is maintained by the state while the blue areas that dominate the red areas remain politically dominant. It is a power game, and its solution is not an intellectual one, as this author attempts. If he were to try to present this argument to one of the groups they would reject him out of hand.