Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.
There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their identities on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race.
Among the capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially be elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so crude as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal of cosmopolitanism would go from an elite privilege to a mass reality if all worked according to plan.
But as things turned out, identity matter after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, and if anything, nationalist tensions flared up between the USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and heritage.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that ideology cannot be a lasting identity. Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.
Also, the certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusive toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America has to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identity and melt into a single pot of a new unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it. And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about overall impact of such assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites. So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 80s. So, if assimilation were indeed the magic formula for America, it meant that non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks did. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they mustn't assimilate into whiteness and become mere imitation-wasps(as some Conservatives wishes Jews to be).. Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reach the top, whites(and others) could assimilate into Jewishness. After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into Jewishness than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.
So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory. Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrants usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges all nations around the world to surrender to Hollywood culture, Western PC, homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But this cult of Diversity is then interwoven with homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam perse. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans to maintain their Islamic ways. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into Muslim-ness. They did just that with Christianity already.
Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims of white racism and white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.
And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homos? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims.
The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for long-term bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It offers reprieve to the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is ensure continued Muslim immigration, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.
Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He is a proud Greek under Turkish rule and without Turkish rule. In contrast, an identity-of-against feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is an identity of vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.
Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity of depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Holocaust. Under this shallow formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics.)
And this is one reason why Jewish Power decided to unleash homomania, especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, given the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism or the Outpost of Western Civilization, and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-anno-sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. In all other respects, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings can only be washed with white shameful acts(of homo fecal penetration).
The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It has one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Otherwise, it had to be destroyed, crushed, or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control must be in hands of the radical left.
In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all way when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.
So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they surely have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way.
Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"
Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as the Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini foolishly made a pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite their divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.
In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the rubbing of branches of different trees at the whim of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality --- just take a look at California --- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definite. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." Even libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean.
It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.