Where racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth intersect, interfactionality fulfills a secondary, exacerbating function. For antisemitism, on the other hand, interfactionality is the primary operating principle.
The entire logic of Christian anti-Semitism manifests in the term “Judeo-Christian.” This term claims a single history and tradition for both groups—one of which by the way has murdered millions of the other and justified those murders by projecting their oppressiveness onto them—and in so doing erases the last twenty centuries of Jewish history such that it deviates from Christianity, and makes the centuries before that significant only as a prelude to the birth of Christ.
It’s entirely possible to critique white womanhood as an element of white supremacy without drawing on or reinforcing sexist power structures. You just have to make sure your story doesn’t draw its rhetorical power from isolating white women as the primary problem.
Conspiracy theorists like to imagine they’re seeing below the veil, willing to face down truths that others are unwilling to acknowledge. But what they’re actually doing, usually, is taking a complex and troubling social problem that is both extremely difficult or impossible to solve and in which they, as part of the social structure, are also in some way complicit; and then subscribing to a narrative that externalizes that problem and also makes it solvable.
Nobody, no matter how intense or intersectional their own oppression, is immune from being a vector of somebody else’s.
In a socially stratified system, groups are oppressed at different levels of intensity but according to the same set of principles. In a matrix of domination, people are oppressed according to different principles, which makes it a more insidious tool of interfactional oppression.
I define interfactionality as conflict between subordinated groups within a system of interlocking oppressions, sown by that system as a way to subvert potential resistance to it into maintenance of it.
War justifies itself by short-circuiting our ethical reasoning.
What sets Get Out and its direct precedents apart from the rest of the genre is not their grounding in social politics, but the fact that those politics are progressive instead of reactionary.
When US America’s most powerful purveyor of intentional right wing anti-intellectualism makes the case for a critical approach to popular film and then completely succeeds in its analysis—however low the difficulty setting—that bodes well for the democratization of media literacy.