Quick Thoughts: Identity Politics and Empire

What is identity politics? To summarize:

Identity politics is the anti-scientific idea that "the personal is political." It overemphasizes individual personal experience and separates the root or systemic causes of societal problems from material conditions and the wider class dynamics and economic relations, as it reduces or limits them to psychological phenomena. The most prominent if not overstated subjects are cultural and gender issues.

Often, identity politics is fueled by emotionalism, prioritizing self-empowerment rather than class struggle and organizing effectively. And we see several self-styled Western "progressives" indulging in their marginalization, seeing their small group numbers as indicators of how "special they are," while creating a straw man that "asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin condemns him to everlasting shame," as described in an RT op-ed. The writer does not deny "that straight white men (as a group) have faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities," but he does shed light on a key point: a truly revolutionary movement should have a modicum of critical analysis centred on institutions, not individuals or other straw man fallacies. It should also think about problem-solving and not limit itself to personal narratives.

The year 2016 was perhaps the year of 'peak IDpol', namely because of the U.S. presidential elections, with Hillary Clinton's campaign being notorious for using identity politics as a selling point. Anyone who dared to publicly criticize Clinton was automatically written off as "sexist", "racist", "homophobic", "transphobic", "Nazi", etc. and scolded for allegedly "mansplaining" or "tone-policing". They are then told, "check your privilege," or that not supporting Clinton was "anti-feminist" and/or an expression of "cis straight white male privilege". It ultimately proved to be alienating and extremely off-putting for the ordinary working people and Donald Trump ended up winning. But, it didn't stop there. Rather than accepting the fact that Clinton legitimately lost, due to all fault of her own, and that her campaign was very unpopular with the wider general public, she and the Democrats would ramp up the anti-Russia propaganda and continue accusing Russia of "interfering" in the elections.

Of course, the anti-Russia sentiment was already being built up prior to the 2016 U.S. Elections results, especially with regards to the U.S.-led proxy war on Syria, which many liberals and leftists alike cheered on. The seven-year (going on eight) long intervention began in 2011 and was kickstarted when the Obama administration was still in power, with Clinton as then-Secretary of State playing a major role in recruiting and helping to provide support for the Wahhabi terrorists who had the mission to overthrow the legitimate government of Bashar al Assad and to destabilize Syria; in the end, the war on Syria is to ultimately contain Russia (and Iran). Anyone who publicly speaks in defense of Syria and shows an ounce of solidarity in the face of the imperialist onslaught was routinely subjected to character assassination and infantile name-calling, with words such as: "tankie", "Nazbol", "Stalinist", "Russian bot", "Russian agent", "Nazi", "fascist", "authoritarian", and so forth. While the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran are demonized and turned into cartoonish villains in Western and Gulf media, the U.S.-backed terrorists such as Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and the Kurdish militias are hailed as "revolutionaries". Either way, we see an increasing trend in, essentially, loudly calling for a Third World War against Russia not only in liberal circles, but in so-called "left" circles as well -- voices whom most would expect to be anti-war.

A warmongering, pro-imperialist, and irrationally anti-Russia 'left' -- a very confused "progressive" side indeed. It seems that the Western left is stuck in some kind of identity crisis today. But where is this all coming from? Look no further than Zbigniew Brzezinski.

To be clear, Brzezinski did not invent postmodernism or identity politics. However, the liberal Cold War ideologue did master the art of targeting intelligentsia and impressionable young people so that they could be used to carry out U.S. foreign policy, and mislead a significant number of people into supporting U.S.-led wars. Under his direction, the CIA invested money into programs that used university campus, anti-Soviet "radical leftist activists" and academics (as well as artists and writers) to help spread imperialist propaganda and give it a more "hip", "humanitarian", "social justice" appeal. Western, but especially American, academia has since continued to teach the post-modernist "oppression theory" or "privilege theory" etc. to students, which are all anti-Marxist and anti-scientific at to the core. More importantly, this post-modernist infiltration was meant to help divert any form of solidarity away from anti-imperialist struggles, and to foster virulent animosity towards the Soviet Union among students and anyone with a hint of 'leftist' leanings. Hence the phenomenon of identity politics that continues to plague the Western left today. Brzezinski’s “soft power” schemes are a highly effective in masking the brutality of U.S. imperialism, as well as concealing the exploitation of impoverished nations. And if you don't support these imperialist wars of aggression against the thoroughly demonized, targeted nations, then by god you are a "bigot", "Russian spy", and other [ridiculous] insinuations ad nauseam. 


*To be expanded upon later.