For the last few decades, leftist thinkers have been working on bringing a word of their secular religion into every corner of society. Their efforts have spawned the ugly Hydra known as ‘intersectionality.’ For those unfamiliar with the concept of intersectionality, it aims to help people understand the ways that our society supposedly privileges and discriminates against people for multiple reasons. So, the logic goes, just as a person missing an arm and a leg will likely have a more difficult time in life than a person who is only missing an arm or is only missing a leg, a black woman will be more discriminated against than a white woman or a black man. While this may initially seem like a helpful way of approaching social problems, it ultimately becomes nothing more than the same tried-and-failed communist division of society into oppressors and oppressed.
Intersectionality claims that Western society mistakenly views the straight, white, able-bodied, native-born male as the default human person, and it also holds that anyone who does not fit into this category is in some way oppressed. Finally, most intersectionalists call on all the oppressed to band together and for ‘woke’ straight, white, able-bodied, native-born males to become aware of their privilege and cease abusing it. This means that, for instance, feminists, racial minorities, those who are physically disabled, those who are mentally disabled, homosexuals, and people who believe themselves to be ‘transgender’ are all meant to band together in common cause in order to ensure the Marxist/Foucauldian vision triumphs against the oppressive white supremacist, ableist, heteronormative patriarchy.
An ironic outcome of intersectionality is that it ultimately fairs to recognize the uniqueness of every person that is its raison d’etre, for it ends up seeing all those who are not straight, white, able-bodied, native-born males as the oppressed people who should be on the ‘same side.’ Such a mix is, of course, volatile. Traditional feminists argue with people who believe themselves to be ‘transgender’ regarding the definition of women, East Asian people are considered too successful and are shoved back to the whites, and mosques have their share of disputes with the local gay bars. Yet perhaps the most significant division in European groups that, according to the intersectionalists, should be allies is between Islamic migrants and feminist ideologues.
The tricky question is whether there are universal values as professed by the philosophers of the Enlightenment or whether every society makes up its own. Intersectionalism, the Enlightenment’s ideological heir, naturally leans to the former while displaying superficial respect for the foreign customs. It claims that all cultures are equal but demands adherence to its own standards. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” famously wrote Jean-Jacques Rousseau; his ideas were echoed by a much less elegant statement of a feminist activist, declaring that “everything is racist, everything is sexist.” Fighting oppression anywhere it could be found—or imagined—is at the core of the leftist ideology. But this is only possible if people worldwide have the same wishes and understand oppression in the same way.
Given the massive influence of Western culture upon the rest of mankind, it is only natural that the Western idea of human rights took precedence—at least on paper, giving international organisations such as the UN some excuse to exist. However, it encountered resistance from its own progeny, the belief that all cultures deserve equal respect and that it is racist to call out foreign customs, even the obviously barbaric ones. And so universalism was forced to coexist with diversity and inclusion; in other words, one had to agree that patriarchy, aristocracy and capitalism were evil unless they were not white. They are allowed to have their traditional holidays and are protected from ‘cultural appropriation.’ But deeper divides force progressives to either keep their eyes shut or risk becoming the oppressors.
As the civil-rights movement rolled through America, a few legal scholars decided to infuse it with collectivist overtones, giving birth to the critical race theory. Their works were first published in the 1970s but did not gain much mainstream attention until the recent rise of BLM activity. Simply put, the CRT is intersectionality with a particular emphasis on race, claiming the current Western social order is unjust not because of explicit racism but because of built-in biases. It is believed that, since minorities were oppressed for centuries, they are still viewed as second-class citizens, and that the laws favour whites even without specifically stating so. In order to hide their inherent racism, lawmakers target issues that have a correlation with race; therefore, measures like stop and search policy are considered racist regardless of their actual efficiency in combating crime and making neighbourhoods safer. This paradigm has become widespread enough for governments, businesses and even many individuals to look over their shoulders, spooked by the ghost of racism.
In light of this attitude, it is rather interesting to watch progressive audiences’ reactions to the debates that sometimes occur between Muslims and feminists. The question of whether women can become imams is especially telling: the Islamic answer is a clear, uncompromising “no.” But which side does the public support? One would think that progressive globalist Westerners would uphold their belief in equality, but, strangely enough, only a fraction of them do. Most tend to defend the “minority rights” and accuse their opponents of insensitivity at best and of racism if they do not feel exceptionally forgiving. Thus, Islamic immigrants are not expected to assimilate but are allowed to form enclaves with little to no interactions with the outside world. They are constantly growing too, absorbing the entire towns and pushing out the local population, as in many London boroughs or places like Blackburn.
There are also crimes that, if committed by the dreaded white men, would have been the talk of the progressive feminists. For years, grooming gangs mainly composed of immigrants molested the local children in Rochdale, Rotherham, and other English towns. The police and councils ignored them, some out of fear of being called racists, and others due to the alleged corruption. There was no usual screeching from the Left—apparently, defenceless girls deserved much less sympathy than Hollywood actresses—and no decisive action from the government. “A damning report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) found child sexual exploitation continues in all parts of England and Wales, a decade after it became a national scandal,” The Independent reported in February 2022.
Meanwhile, the Rochdale grooming gang members, convicted back in 2012, are complaining that deportation from the UK would “interfere with their human rights,” as reported by the BBC on 27 June 2022. The article also mentions that “Aziz had renounced his Pakistani citizenship on 13 July 2018, six years after he was jailed, but just days before the Court of Appeal ruled he could be deprived of his UK citizenship.” Usually fond of complaining about the “rape culture,” feminists ceded ground without a fight, turning their attention to representation in TV shows and mean words in social media.
Skirmishes between the two progressive camps are rare occasions when the Right can just sit back and enjoy the show while the Left devours itself. However, the Left is unlikely to obliterate itself though, and there are still plenty of issues on which it stands united. Rather than merely hoping that the Left destroys itself, we ought to focus on dealing with the more dangerous side of that ideological camp, which is currently those who are supportive of Islam and advocate for further Islamic immigration. Not only the racism card appears to trample that of sexism in general, but there is also a difference in champions: As a general rule, Islamic immigrants are more protective of their closed communities than committed progressives are of theirs. Moreover, Muslim society is traditionalist, and their alliance with the Left is one of pure convenience; unlike the Westerners, they do not fall victim to the false narrative of victimhood, using it to gain privileges instead.
Apart from that, they are causing severe harm that we cannot ignore. They are changing the cities to resemble the Middle East, influencing the host culture, and erasing its legacy. They contribute to the rise of crime and, as the bombings, assassinations and grooming gangs show, are known to target the locals specifically. Naturally, not every Islamic immigrant wishes to restructure the society that welcomes him. Many cross borders legally in hopes of a more peaceful life away from nations that have been torn apart. They are not all advocating for sharia law and many have real respect for the nations that has given them new homes. Most importantly, not every one of them condones the actions of the criminals. However, it is wrong to sweep the real issues under the rug for fear of causing offence.
Western civilisation is facing one of its darkest hours. Morally weakened from the inside, dependent on resources of the increasingly hostile world, suffering from massive inflation, and meek in the eyes of the potential aggressors, it comes more and more to resemble the Roman Empire crumbling under the barbarians’ blows. It falls to us to preserve what remains and, hopefully, rebuild at least something of what our forebears have built. So let us push against intimidation tactics; accusations of racism must not leave us defenceless in the presence of real danger. Tolerance is good within reasonable limits. Apathy, on the other hand, is always deadly.