The beast at the breast of the Left

The more I learn about the Regressive Left, the more I see a hidden streak of bigotry within it, and it’s often anti-Semitism. First they threw out Jewish lesbians during Chicago’s Dyke March because those Jews were supposedly expressing Zionism, and then we have the constant attacks not just on Israel, but on Zionism. And of course there’s also the constant demonization of “toxic whiteness” and “toxic masculinity”, as well as the admiration for terrorists, as shown in my post on the Women’s March and Women’s Strike, with the organizers showing love for cop-killers and other murderers. Nobody on the Left mentioned has mentioned save one call-out by reporter Jake Tapper, who then was smeared by Feminist Icon Linda Sarsour’s as a member of the “alt-right.” Oh, and one intrepid New York Times reporter, whom I’ll mention below.

So far Fox News and many conservative websites, as well as the more liberal Daily Beast, have spotted this streak of hatred and bigotry in Sarsour and her allies, but of course they have their own Christian agenda. (That does not mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to what they say.) Now, however, the news is making its way into the real mainstream press: the New York Times. (You’ll never see it in the liberal New Yorker, whose unspoken agenda is to never criticize Islam—or, indeed, any faith.)

The NYT writer who’s calling out the Regressive Left is Bari Weiss, a staff editorNot long ago she wrote a column about the anti-Semitism of the Dyke March: “I’m glad the Dyke March banned Jewish stars“. The title was of course provocative, but what she meant was this:

I’m sorry for the women, like Ms. Grauer, who found themselves under genuine threat for carrying a colorful cloth falsely accused of being pernicious.

But I am also grateful.

Has there ever been a crisper expression of the consequences of “intersectionality” than a ban on Jewish lesbians from a Dyke March?

I wrote about that column here, and have posted a fair amount about Sarsour, a woman who seems to have pulled the wool over the eyes of many feminists on the Left, and not just women, but men and organizations like the ACLU. In yesterday’s Times, Weiss exposes the bigotry of not just Sarsour, but two of her three co-organizers of the Women’s March, all of whom have extolled dubious characters and anti-Semites. You can see Weiss’s piece by clicking on the screenshot below:

I won’t reprise what Weiss says about Sarsour and her love of sharia and hatred of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, her fight with Jake Tapper, as well as the admiration of the Women’s March and its organizers for criminals like Assata Shakur, Rasmea Odeh, and Donna Hylton—all these issues I’ve discussed before. Let’s see instead how Sarsour and two more of the Women’s March organizers, Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez, have fawned all over the leader of the Nation of Islam (“Black Muslims”): Louis Farrakhan, a Chicago resident and an unhinged, bull goose anti-Semitic loon.

From Weiss’s piece:

What’s more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the women’s movement who harbors such alarming ideas. Largely overlooked have been the similarly outrageous statements of the march’s other organizers.

Ms. Mallory, in addition to applauding Assata Shakur as a feminist emblem, also admires Fidel Castro, who sheltered Ms. Shakur in Cuba. She put up a flurry of posts when Mr. Castro died last year. “R.I.P. Comandante! Your legacy lives on!” she wrote in one. She does not have similar respect for American police officers. “When you throw a brick in a pile of hogs, the one that hollers is the one you hit,” she posted on Nov. 20.

Ms. Perez also expressed her admiration for a Black Panther convicted of trying to kill six police officers: “Love learning from and sharing space with Baba Sekou Odinga.”

But the public figure both women regularly fawn over is Louis Farrakhan.

On May 11, Ms. Mallory posted a photo with her arm around Mr. Farrakhan, the 84-year-old Nation of Islam leader notorious for his anti-Semitic comments, on Twitter and Instagram. “Thank God this man is still alive and doing well,” she wrote. It is one of several videos and photos and quotes that Ms. Mallory has posted of Mr. Farrakhan.

Ms. Perez is also a big fan. In the fall, she posted a photo in which she holds hands with Mr. Farrakhan, writing, “There are many times when I sit with elders or inspirational individuals where I think, ‘I just wish I could package this and share this moment with others.’ ” She’s also promoted video of Mr. Farrakhan “dropping knowledge” and another in which he says he is “speaking truth to power.”

Here’s the photo mentioned above. The equivalent would be if some admired progressive, like Bernie Sanders, were to be photographed with his arm around white supremacist Richard Spencer, with added plaudits. Can you imagine the outcry from the Left were that to happen?

And here’s another Instagram photo I found, with both Mallory and Sarsour extolling this Jew-hating crank in the comments:

But is Farrakhan truly an anti-Semite? Well, that’s been clear for years to those of us who live in Chicago, but let Weiss tell us:

Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since [Farrakhan] has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page has called “twisted,” remain as appalling as ever.

“And don’t you forget, when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s forever!” he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: “The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters.” Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: “You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell.” He called Hitler “a very great man” on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a “gutter religion.”

In one of the several widely available YouTube videos he’s made about the Jews, he told black Americans that “the control of the Synagogue of Satan over our people must be exposed.” He adds: “These satanic ones have not only controlled hip-hop but they control, according to their own words, the very messages that are brought to the public.” He goes on to offer a truly remarkable analysis of the hip-hop industry in which “intelligent” rappers are rejected by the “satanic minds” who insist that they “want filth” and encourage “vulgarity” and “savagery.” This is the first 10 minutes of an hour.

Mr. Farrakhan is also an unapologetic racist. He insists that whites are a “race of devils” and that “white people deserve to die.”

Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950s views of gender: “Your professional lives can’t satisfy your soul like a good, loving man.” Recently he told Jay-Z that he should make Beyoncé put on some clothes. He alsoopposes gay marriage.

If that wasn’t enough of a rap sheet, Mr. Farrakhan also loves Scientology and believes 9/11 was a false flag operation.

“When God puts you in the ovens, it’s forever.” The mildest thing I can say about that is “Holy crap!” This is someone whom Sarsour and her allies admire? How can anyone who purports to show solidarity with Jews have anything to do with this man? Even the Southern Poverty Law Center, with its flawed judgment, is savvy enough to list the Nation of Islam as a “hate group” that is anti-gay and anti-Semitic. Both the Nation of Islam as well as its leader have a long history of racism and bigotry.

Remember, too, that if Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins made any statements even close to what Farrakhan said, they’d instantly be called out, demonized, and destroyed by the Regressive Left. But when Farrakhan says it—and his history and anti-Semitism are no secret—well, it’s just fine. The brother looks great! The brother does not age; God bless him! My family! Sarsour and Mallory lap it up!

What a pair! Do those who admire these women know about this stuff? And if they do, do they care? This just confirms my suspicion that the Regressive Left is deeply tinged with anti-Semitism. And I wonder if the American Civil Liberties Union still “stands with Linda.”

Weiss also answers the inevitable chiding that we should be ignoring the shenanigans of the Regressive Left and spend our time going after the more dangerous machinations of Trump and his minions. But this is what I tell myself when I feel bad about criticizing the organizers of what was, after all, a feminist march:

I can already hear the pushback. What’s a few impolitic tweets and photos compared to the horror show of this administration? Save your outrage for the transgender ban in the military, for the lies that spew forth daily from the press briefing room, for the cuts to Planned Parenthood, the shady business with Russia, and, and, and.

. . . Will progressives have more spine than conservatives in policing hate in their ranks? Or will they ignore it in their fury over the Trump administration?

I am sure that Linda Sarsour, and perhaps the other leaders of the Women’s March, will block me for writing this. Maybe I’ll be accused of siding with the alt-right or tarred as Islamophobic. But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

Most of the people who read this site already agree with me about the reprehensible behavior and agenda of Trump, as well as the ridiculous and kneejerk way the Republicans are running the government. My fulminating against them, much as I hate them, won’t accomplish much on this site. You can get that almost everywhere. But perhaps I can at least alert the Left to the vipers lurking at its breast.

My lame attempt at a political cartoon:


Here’s a list of all articles written by Bari Weiss, at least as given on Muck Rack. She’s a progressive who hasn’t put up with the bigotry of some segments of the Left.

h/t: Grania, Enrico


  1. Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I’m “stealing” the picture and others will see it.

  2. Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:38 am | Permalink


    Is there an emoji for that?

  3. Richard Sanderson
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    But bruv, the regressive left call themselves “anti-racist”…..

    Even today, I caught another member of the regressive left, Dan Arel, engaging in antisemitism.

  4. BJ
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Every time someone tells you to stop criticizing the regressive left because the Trump administration/the right is more important, remind them that this has been going on long before Trump.

    I started college in 2001 at a college known for its liberal politics. Even then, there was tons of open antisemitism from the far-left groups. I was actually stopped several times on campus because these people knew me to be Jewish and wanted to quiz me to make sure I was sufficiently against Jews they didn’t like and Israel (I didn’t mince my words with them). Other Jewish students were as well. Posters for a group supporting Israel were regularly and immediately torn down or adorned with oft-antisemitic graffiti.

    Nothing about this is new, nor is there anything new about their concept of “toxic masculinity,” hatred of white people, love of Islam, or respect for terrorists who killed “the right people.” It’s just more visible now because more people on the left are willing to justify and/or ignore it, as is much of the media.

    And while the occasional article from the NYT is slightly encouraging, it isn’t nearly enough. Most NYT readers (like my parents) still don’t believe me when I tell them about the myriad things going on with a good portion of the left, or even believe the regressive left exists in significant numbers or force. That won’t change until more of us on the left as well as the media speak up about it, because people who lean left generally won’t believe right-leaning sources.

    • Kevin
      Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      PC and conservative counter-reaction existed long ago. I was in college when Dinesh wrote Illiberal Education. Regressive left was already in the works and the foundation for Trumpism was forming.

      The left using cultural relativism to justify any of their bigoted aims, while the right exploits the weakness of inflexibility of the left. It’s like they are made to make each other worse.

      • BJ
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        “It’s like they are made to make each other worse.”

        Sad, but true. And as each gets worse, the useful idiots on each side closer to the center will continue to try and justify the extremism and a lack of response to it.

    • fizziks
      Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      I agree that it has all been there for a while and is more visible now, but we also can’t ignore the role of social media and internet echo chambers in radicalizing people an inflating the regressive left at the expense of the sensible left. The person who in 2004 may have been getting most of their information from CNN and NPR may very well now be getting it from HuffPo and Chris Hayes’ Twitter feed. It isn’t just exposure – the relative numbers have changed.

      Also it is important to note that far from simply a question of ‘which is worse: regressive left or Trump,’ they actually feed each other in a symbiosis. If the reasonable left would cut off the regressive left the Trump phenomenon would probably die.

      • darrelle
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

        “If the reasonable left would cut off the regressive left the Trump phenomenon would probably die.”

        I don’t see how that could possibly work. The people taken in by the Trumps of the world, that greedily chug down the propaganda from the likes of the Republican Party Machine, Fox News and their ilk, such people don’t need something like the regressive left to actually exist. They just make it up as needed. Or rather the Trump’s, the Republican Party Machine, Fox News and their ilk, the propaganda machine, make it up as needed.

        There have always been nuts on the fringes of the left, and yes, today’s left fringe nuts are more visible and have a bit more influence than they have at other times in the US in the past. But they have never had the influence or numbers to warrant the hyperbolic characterization of the left that the afore mentioned propaganda machine has spent at least the past 25 years building, and their marks faithfully regurgitating. Not even remotely. When people like that need an Other they’ll find one. Even if they have to use every carny trick in the book.

        • fizziks
          Posted August 2, 2017 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

          We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

          For one thing, consider that only several thousand votes swinging the other way in a few states would have given the election to Clinton! With margins that close, everything matters. How many votes did the Democrats lose because of Obama’s strange refusal to use the words ‘Islamic Terrorism’ or inability to call ISIS by its real name (what was up with that anyway?), or by Clinton’s uncritical embrace of the worst excesses of BLM following their assassination of 5 police officers in Dallas? Those could easily have made the difference between a Trump presidency and not, and they only happened because of far left and identity politics interest group pressure on the Democrats.

          For another thing, yes, I agree that Fox News will always invent a bogeyman if none exists (ex. the “war on Christmas!”) but it makes their work that much easier if the bogeyman actually does exist. For example I think that persuadable people under age 65 perked up and took notice when Bret Weinstein was interviewed in a way that they wouldn’t during normal times of some Fox wanker pundit ranting.

    • Posted August 2, 2017 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      That comports with experiences that I am having. When I chat with my colleagues at work (all lefties in a biology department), they are aware of the most prominent shenanigans of the Ctrl-Left, but they are not aware of how broad and pervasive it has become. Even though they are well connected to mainstream media sources.
      This will change when the mainstream media pick it up more consistently.
      I also think that the phenomenon will take a big hit when the comedians and comedy shows start to make fun of it. And it will be easy to write comedy about it.

      • nicky
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        No, it will not be ‘easy‘, because the ‘genuine’ article resembles satire too closely. How often have we not asked “Is this real? Must be a spoof, or what?”

      • Zach
        Posted August 3, 2017 at 12:20 am | Permalink

        I also think that the phenomenon will take a big hit when the comedians and comedy shows start to make fun of it.

        And when will that be? The only big-time political comedian who’s riffed on the subject has been Bill Maher. And he’s kind of an outlier. The other shows, well… most of the Ctrl-Left’s shenanigans have taken the form of minor campus squabbles, and thus might be below their radars. But a few have been real events. The example that stands out in my mind is Milo Yiannopoulos getting run out of Berkley. And I can remember when Jon Stewart made fodder of ski-masked vandals. Yet googling “daily show milo yiannopoulos” turns up nothing. Same with “last week tonight milo yiannopoulos,” as well as “daily show university” and “last week tonight university.” (That is, nothing except a bit about student debt and a “Cocks Not Glocks” piece covering dildo-weilders vs. open carry advocates on a Texas campus. Anyway…)

        Now, maybe the only reason Jon Stewart lampooned those particular ski-masked vandals was because they were G-20 protesters, and because globalization was something that most of his audience still looked on favorably. But I can’t believe that the man who organized the Reason Rally wouldn’t have had something to say about the thoroughgoing un-reasonableness of certain elements on the modern Left. His professional inheritors have been totally silent on the topic though. Why?

        Because, I suspect—and I realize how uncharitable this sounds—they don’t really have a problem with the Ctrl-Left. Sure, they probably don’t approve of some of their more unruly means. But they think the ends which they’re pursuing are ultimately desirable. So Trevor Noah / John Oliver / Samantha Bee / most recently, Jim Jefferies (all foreigners, by the way, unlike Bill Maher—is that relevant?) won’t criticize them.* Why, just tonight I heard Trevor Noah refer to the disparity between whites’ and blacks’ higher education rates as an “opportunity gap.” Now, to be fair, there is certainly a gap. And, surely, a decent chunk of that has to do with opportunity. But the way he said it implied that opportunity was the only possible factor in explaining such a gap. And indeed, such a way of thinking—which ipso facto equates disparities in outcome with disparities in opportunity—seems to be becoming only more prominent on the Left, not less. In other words, the Left’s Overton Window is sliding towards its far end, and these TV hosts are sliding right along with it. Whether they’re doing it for the ratings or because they’re true believers, I’m not sure. But they are doing it, and they are aligned—in spirit, if not in message—with the campus crazies. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to cover their more loony counterparts. After all, they’ve had ample opportunity to do so up ’til now, and they haven’t taken it.

        *Jim Jefferies might. As a long-time fan of his standup, I still have faith in him.

  5. Randy schenck
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Weiss is correct – If the feminist consider these three, leaders of the movement, this movement has gone off the cliff. The left needs to wake up to this bigotry.

  6. DrBrydon
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Really, I think the rhetoric around Trump is overwrought. His objectionable personal behavior and beliefs aside, he has proven to be an ineffectual executive. We may regret that if he gets us into a war, but for now it’s a relief, but hardly a surprise. Though people continue to wring their hands over the death of democracy, Congress, the courts, and the executive departments all seem to be doing their jobs. He is, in actuality, very small beer. Hi

    • Randy schenck
      Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      Rhetoric you say. Strange name for first class nepotism, conflicts of interest, gutting the EPA, turning affirmative action upside down and ripping people out of their homes and deporting them. Give me ten more minutes to think about it and I’ll give you more. Small beer?

      • sensorrhea
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        Thanks for saving me the trouble.

      • nicky
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        I think Dr Brydon has a point, not really small beer, but the fact that Mr Trump is so ineffective (no ACA repeal, failed immigration ban, the ‘wall’, counterproductive opting out of Paris, the Scaramouche circus, etc, etc.) is a small blessing. Just imagine the havoc and suffering a Pence or Cruz could -and would- cause.
        The gutting of the EPA and Gorsuch are his only ‘achievements’ for now.

        • Randy schenck
          Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

          Yes, aside from gaining the total disrespect of just about the entire world in 6 months or less and becoming a stooge for Putin he is just an empty suit in an airplane.

      • Posted August 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

        We knew. But what did those who voted for Trump expect of him? He’s doing exactly what they said they wanted in the White House in the same way as he conducted business: ineptly, quasi-illegally or illegally, taking advantage of tax laws, declaring bankruptcy numerous times, using his international relationships to further his own agenda, hobnobbing with the oligarchs, hiring contractors and illegals and then not paying them, etc. When has he ever been otherwise? And, this “knowledgeable businessman” was considered a desirable presidential candidate who would change America? Well, he is and the changes are making Americans consider leaving home and the rest of the world to laugh at us with our ignorant clown of a president who has surrounded himself with a cabinet of “deplorables”. Even if he were impeached and out of office, we still would be in the hands of Pence or one of the other underlings underneath him but cut from similarly religious far-right cloth.

        • Harrison
          Posted August 2, 2017 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

          To quibble: A lot of the rust belt Trump voters who had gone for Obama just four years prior wanted simple economic populism.

          Now while I and others knew it was never going to happen, it was something Trump repeatedly promised and that a lot of people wanted. So for that segment of voters, no, he didn’t give them “exactly what they said they wanted.” Because what they wanted was a big infrastructure bill.

          • Posted August 4, 2017 at 9:31 am | Permalink

            We all should know by now that presidential candidates make promises they can’t or won’t keep when in office. Trump hasn’t “Made America Great Again” unless you consider a return to violence, social injustices and even greater control of the country by wealthy mega-business interests and far-right religious folk a “Great America”.

            When I was traveling through the heartland last fall, the Trumpophiles were listening to Fox and their ilk 24/7, loudly anti-Obama, anti-
            social programs for the poor (who were too lazy to work), anti-LGBTQ+, anti blacks and whites marrying, anti-same sex marriage, anti-abortion, anti-ACA (Obamacare), etc.

            People throughout our country are expressing themselves ever more irrationally and acting out with ever more violence. Some of us are so stupid that we kill Sikhs or Indians from India instead of the Muslims we intended to kill.
            Great America indeed!

        • Zach
          Posted August 3, 2017 at 12:39 am | Permalink

          We knew. But what did those who voted for Trump expect of him? He’s doing exactly what they said they wanted in the White House in the same way as he conducted business…


          I think DrBrydon has a point, in that Trump’s ineptitude is a blessing-in-disguise. His real impact, though, is far broader. I think Paul Berman nailed it while comparing Trump’s Russia scandal to Nixon’s Watergate:

          We know, therefore, even without the impeachment trial that may or may not occur, that Trump’s Russia scandal amounts to the realization of the great fear of the Founding Fathers, which was the subversion-by-corruption of American democracy by democracy’s greatest enemy, the European monarchies—in this case, Europe’s last major dictatorship. By definition, then: a vastly larger matter than anything that came up in Watergate.

          But the scandal is historically large mostly because it is not shocking. Trump ran for the presidency promising to perpetrate outrages against the political tradition, and, although he has not built the wall, he has perpetrated the outrages. The scandal, the deep scandal, is that he was, in fact, elected. It is not a secret scandal. It is a public scandal. It is a cultural collapse. It is a spontaneous degeneration.
          Trump could decide on a whim to resign tomorrow, worried perhaps about the Greek tragedy that is descending upon his children. But masses of people will still be yearning deliriously to Make America Great Again—yearning, that is, for an authoritarian leader and a violent political culture. A bigger event than Watergate, then. Deeper, more cultural, more difficult to understand.

  7. TJR
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    The descendants of enslaved black africans becoming moslems has always puzzled me. Where do they think whitey got the idea from?

  8. Desnes Diev
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    The pakistani talibans are publishing a “women magazine” (google search for ‘Sunnat E Khaula’). Articles deal with the joy of being a real jihadist behind a burka, the felicity of arranged child/teen marriage…

    Perhaps Ms. Sarsour should apply as a journalist in this monument of open minded and liberal feminism?

    • Tom
      Posted August 2, 2017 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Interesting to see Mr Farrakhan is still alive and kicking. I haven’t given him much thought since the assassination of Malcolm X was the news of the day.
      I wonder if Ms Sarsour has quizzed him about that debacle?
      Perhaps she is just shy or too polite?

    • Posted August 2, 2017 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps there should be a similar women’s magazine for the Yazidi women captured in Sinjar in 2014 who were enslaved as sex slaves, raped, starved and brutalized, sold and resold.
      Those who have been freed in Mosul are so traumatized they don’t believe they’re free and won’y believe their town has been freed until they can see it with their own eyes.

      Perhaps, Ms. Sarsour and her ilk would like to offer themselves as “companions” to ISIS, the Taliban or other such religious warriors who can teach them the reality of a Muslim woman’s place and value, or the much lesser value of non-Muslim women or Muslim women of the wrong sect.

      • Posted August 2, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        Please pardon my typo: “don’t”. My fingers get even more erratic when I’m upset!

  9. Smegma
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    The Ctrl-left loves to “whitewash” the history that doesn’t fit with their ideology. The Nation of Islam was created by folks supposedly rebelling against Christian indoctrination. They, of course, didn’t realize that Islam indoctrinates the same way – via colonization, and was just as prolific as the Christians were. The new regressive left won’t even consider this history due to the special protection that Islam gets from the left press.

  10. Posted August 2, 2017 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I am glad, Jerry, that you continue to highlight the problems with the Regressive Left.

    I don’t have direct evidence for it, but I do believe that their increasing presence (whether that is due to inflating numbers or just inflated media presence) has contributed to an increased appetite for rightwing leadership. And it scares me that they have become so mainstream. As others have remarked, they have become the left’s version of the Tea Party in the States. Perhaps they don’t have the explicit influence on government that comes with elected office yet, but I fear that is still to come. I’ve seen shades of this already up here in Canada with Niki Ashton’s bid for the NDP Leadership. I believe she’s still polling at around 25% support of party members – not first-place, but not that far off from it either.

    And like what happened with the US’s traditional Republicans and Tea Party members, the rest of the left will be doomed to capitulate to the demands of the Regressive Left if they let them get into actual positions of governmental power. This is why it’s so important to continue highlighting their faults, why it is certainly a worthwhile battle. It will be a very scary day when the left is forced to incorporate such dogma to avoid complete political annihilation.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted August 2, 2017 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      I believe you are on to something here. The Tea Party portion of the republican party has now been stolen away by the Trump movement and that is his 30/35 percent. The rest of the party will either bolt or go down with Trump. The mainstream left will be dragged down by the regressives in similar manner. Maybe we will soon have 4 or 5 parties.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        The current US political system can never have more than 2 main parties. It’s designed that way. Unless there is major reform, people will continue to be forced into one of the two main parties to get a political voice. I can’t see that changing either because the current system suits the big donors.

        • Posted August 2, 2017 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

          Yes, that’s exactly why I fear the mainstream Left in the States will eventually be forced to kowtow to the Regressive contingent. It would be political suicide to split a national party in the US; whatever party split would be gifting Congress and the Presidency to the still intact party. The traditional Republicans and the Tea Partiers both knew this, which is why they never split. And the Tea Party has forced the Republican party further to the Right because of this necessary continuity.

          This is exactly what I fear will happen with the Democrats and the Regressives in the States someday.

  11. Harrison
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    I mentioned this in the last post on Sarsour, but if the SPLC lists the Nation of Islam as a hate group, and Sarsour is a fan, how can the SPLC stand with Sarsour? It is the lowest form of hypocrisy.

  12. Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    My Timeline:

    The Left (18th century)
    Smash the Monarchy!

    Old Left (19th century)
    Workers unite! Later, was concerned with unions, class inequality.

    New Left (1970)
    Anti-war, counterculture, equality and emancipation for women, anti-tradition, Hippies etc.

    Radical Left
    Communist, anti-west, teaming up with e.g. Palestinian terrorists (e.g. Rote Armee Fraktion). Militant, anti-semitic.

    Left Academia (1980)
    LGBTQ, different feminisms against each other. Emergence of “Left Academia”, picking up anti-west sentiment, anti-colonial (of course, has older roots)

    Postmodernism (1990)
    Developed in “Left Academia”, the pus called postmodernism, consisted of various strains of anti-intellectualisms, comes to a head and begins to discharge into wider society, typically as (anti-west) Culture Relativism, and “multiculturalism” (driven by desire to dillute “judeo-christian” tradition and customs). The quotes are, because it’s often more “so-called”.

    Critical Race Theory
    Especially of interest, Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, as an explicit rejection of Civil Rights movements, liberalism and enlightenment. Takes mulitculturalism and marries it with a far right form of authoritarianism (resulting in an inversion of Far Right politics, including racism and sexism, ie. race is real, and important, but not biological as the far right believes, but a “cultural construction”). As I noted several times before, original intersectionality is very different from its newer version (which is now the default).

    Woke Culture (2000s)
    Online, ca 2006 “Social Justice Sally” indicates meme reaction to first “social justice warriors”; Tumblr social justice movement, subsequent social media left.

    2009 RaceFail 09, against “cultural appropriation” among fiction writers (nerds & writers are more affected due to proximity to postmodernist “lit crit” and academia, hence it makes sense that the recent infection spread from Tumblr queer/LGTB etc fandoms).

    2011 Elevatorgate, i.e. “West/US is a rape culture / atheism is a rape culture”.

    2014 accusations of rape culture (charges of sexism etc., lack of wokeness) against gamer nerds. The backlash against that Woke Culture was then recorded as GamerGate.

    2015 early outbreaks of Woke at US Campus. The Regressive mindset is a subset of Woke Culture, with a focus on Islam Accommodationism.

    • Posted August 2, 2017 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      I want to note that it is not universally accepted that “Left Academia” or the pomo branch are really left. E.g. Chomsky disputes this. And Sokal and Bricmont, both leftist, argued in their book that postmodernism is also employed by the Right. More recently, Latour, who was accused of using postmodern obscurantism earlier, conceded that it has become a tool of the Right. And it’s true, you can find postmodern antiscience argumentation on Answers in Genesis.

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 3, 2017 at 2:56 am | Permalink

      Really nice and helpful timeline and definitions, Aneris. Thanks!

      While that certainly looks dire, the New Democrats are still chugging along, basically the centrists that seem the most likely to get elected these days. At the national level the status quo hasn’t changed that much.

      (Actually all we really need are more charismatic candidates (like Obama and J. Trudeau) and the populace won’t really care what their policies are. [Which is perilously close to the demagoguery of the Repubs last election–arrgh!] )

  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    “Shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
    “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in”

  14. W.Benson
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Tamika Mallory (someone I never heard of) has this to say about her hog comment: This post has absolutely nothinf to do with police. It means if a mom yells out “you kids better not be jumping on the bed” and one child responds being defensive, she pretty knows which kid is guilty. Also, I have NEVER heard anyone call police “hogs. I’ve heard “pigs.””
    I think, at least on this point, Bari Weiss owes Ms. Mallory an apology. The similar expression I am familiar with is “It’s a hit dog that hollers.”

    • BJ
      Posted August 3, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      I would be much more inclined to believe her if she didn’t repeatedly praise cop killers in the highest terms possible.

  15. eric
    Posted August 2, 2017 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    What’s more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the women’s movement who harbors such alarming ideas.

    If Sarsour wants to mach against Israel on another day, I won’t agree with her but I also won’t think much of it. I’m sure the Womens’ Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement both have their share of members who are diametrically opposed on other issues.

    What is crazy about this new intersectionality movement is that the followers don’t seem capable or willing to set some issues aside for the sake of promoting other issues. They have no concept of partial allies – it’s all or nothing.

    Which I guess is the whole point of calling it intersectional. And I guess it isn’t really that new. The GOP preventing the Log Cabin Republicans from being present at some conventions is the same. The “Hastert Rule” is a similar concept too; reject any potential ally or working partner who is not sufficiently pure. The far left is simply aping the tactics of the right in this.

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 3, 2017 at 3:01 am | Permalink

      “I’m sure the Womens’ Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement both have their share of members who are diametrically opposed on other issues.”

      Thank you for that!

    • Posted August 4, 2017 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      “What is crazy about this new intersectionality movement is that the followers don’t seem capable or willing to set some issues aside for the sake of promoting other issues. They have no concept of partial allies – it’s all or nothing.”

      Wait, this surprises you? This is the very definition of intersectionality. To wit “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”

      Intersectionality HAS to be all in. If it’s not, then it doesn’t exist.

%d bloggers like this: