Beyond Left and Right: The Identity of Identity Politics
src:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/439101032394034832/
In this video we compare two instances of extreme identity politics – one being the ultimate piece of politically correct legislative drafted in 2015. for the “benefit” of European nations by then elite think tank, the other coming from then fringe Alt Right spokesman’s talk given at approximately the same period. We propose that both instances of identity politics rely on congenial principles of identity based on negation where personal dignity of human being is founded on interactions of opposed social groups and not on the intrinsic value of human person.
In plain English: we demonstrate that the same kind of stench usually indicates to same crap, whichever nostril picked it up first, whether left or right.
Show notes:
European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation
Dreamers of the Gay: Race Theology and Political Sorcery
Spencer’s Speech on political theology
Model European Statute for Promotion of Tolerance (original draft)
Political Correctness – A Nominalist Cook Book
Branko Malić
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider making a donation
Good presentation. Identity in itself is a pandora’s box, and identity politics is a shady situation. Bio and Zoe are the ancient Greek categories for those belonging to the polis and those without, bio had the rights and protections, zoe didn’t. zoe is denied political identity yet obviously zoe has an identity role in creating bio. they are codependent – political identity is always co dependent on the other. this is a principle of all politics so i think it obviously extends to lef-right-and centre. Just to affirm your identity as a Brazilian for ex. or a Georgian or Catholic or Hindu or whatever, is as much saying “I am not…(insert all other countries/ identities)…” a negative identity which requires the presence of zoe. all ideational identity is in this symbiotic relationship.
interesting to note the change in the language of the document over the recent political ‘upheavals’ and the look at the decptive language of ‘the right to be different’ which needs to be led into one of these negative political identity groups…”well I’m ….” define yourself and identity always fails. always falls into these negative categories and naturally leads “an individual” into confrontation with zoe to affirm his or her “identity.”
interesting side note: an essay question for an application to Stanford University Medical School (paraphrase): “Here at Stanford we value diversity above all else and we look to have a diverse student body. Please explain to us in what ways you consider yourself to be diverse either religiously, sexually, or ethnically and how you can contribute to the diversity of our campus (2000 words)”
There is an ancient saying from the Orient, “What is that which recedes every time you approach it? Yourself.”
There was an interesting novel about idenity in the philosophical sense by Paul Auster The Red Room Trilogy I think it was called. Very post-modern take on the slippage of identity and the liking of the alike, identifying with identical people, peer group pressure, searching for one’s self in the other and so on. The specular matrix as Irigary called it. Identity politics is an expression of that slippage in my opinion. Perhaps not so modern either.