Yes, that was in the back of my mind too, but as you know, the progressives are no fan of Jews. I would say their attacks on Orientals is the cultural war that divides. What complicates the matter is that the Jews fall into that category also.

Whoa 'intersectionality'? I like that word. Not sure what it means but it plays well. Coming from a family of Ashkenasis i resent the hell out of this craziness. I thought we were through with that crap when Hitler died.

There is something about the minds of leftists that allows them to vote for the very people who would and do oppress them. For example, most black Americans hold views very much opposed by the Democrats they vote for. Basic policies such as: they overwhelming favor voter ID, school choice, and more police presence while the Democrats openly oppose each of those.

My working theory is that it is having been indoctrinated into basic collectivism. Collectivist thinking is a rather slippery slope because once you've accepted the notion that a "demographic group" can be used as the basis for positive view of one's self, it is a small step to accepting a group can be guilty/exalted for things its members had no part of, for example.

It starts with little things like "I'm Italian, I know how to cook Italian food" and progresses to things like "I'm X and we vote for party Y", to things like "I'm X so I am oppressed", which inevitably leads to "You're not X therefore you're oppressing me" and ultimately to "You're Y and thus guilty of evil and deserving of being eliminated for the health of X."

You can trace that not just in today, but, for example, in the Weimar Republic (and continental Europe more broadly to a lesser degree at the time) that laid the foundation for Hitler and his brand of Socialism.

It is accompanied, in every case I've seen so far, by an asset on basic reason. We can see the assault on fundamental biology today, the claims of math or "being on time" as being racist; the Weimar Republic era had its share of the same things. Whether it was dissembling on what "race" meant (whatever was most politically expedient) to what "art" meant, to things like being good with finances or preferring to work in what today we'd call "white collar" jobs, the same assault on basic reasoning is found. It has to be.

A key and dominant aspect of all collectivism is the destruction of individual reasoning. And the Democrats have always been collectivist right back to the Jackson era. They argue not for individual rights, but for collective ones. Notice they never put forth any alleged or assumed right as an individual one.

Instead you see " rights" as their go-to phrasing. Even with abortion, which regardless of one's personal opinion on the procedure and what it means, arguably it would be probably the most individual of rights the Left has ever claimed. But they don't put it that way; instead you see it as "reproductive rights" or "women's health rights."

One attribute I see that is common between the two groups has been a basic normalization of collectivism. Most religions are to some greater or lesser degree collectivist or have been. Both black americans as a group, and Jews share something important in that regard: they've been the target of strong collectivist rule.

Unfortunately, both groups have responded in a collectivist manner: they identify themselves as a group that is oppressed as a group. Thus begins the normalization in those groups of the pre-eminence of a group identity. From there, the step to voting in a preferential way to those who think and speak as collectivists is fairly small - the language is familiar and language familiarity is a strong predictor of voting tendencies.

We see it to a smaller degree at a familial level ("my parents were democrat, so I voted Democrat". However, the familial bonds in that regard are much weaker, and there is a perennial tradition of breaking with family tradition. It is easier, and often glamorized, to break with a family history of voting than with a larger group collectivism. It is one of the reasons the Marxist subsets of collectivism push to destroy the family as a concept.

Families can be diverse in their thinking and makeup, and still get along. Dissent from the family dogma can be tolerated. This forms a basis for breaking the dogma at a larger level. Collectivism at large requires a group's components to toe the line and not stand out.

Deeply mono-religious communities heavily emphasize the adherence to the family dogma as part of a larger dogmatic collective - their religion. Thus they can withstand the smaller cases of individuals breaking with it. Hitler, for one, understood this and used it as one of the reasons he wanted/needed to elevate Naziism to a quasi-religious level. Nor was he alone in this.

"Prior, in spite of Jew, Asian and Black hatred on the part of the progressive left; I never observed violence against the Jews or Asians like the lamestream has reported before biden infected the White House."

It is almost always ignored and forgotten, but in the run-up to the National Socialist regime, they saw similar patterns. It is part of the sequence I noted above. Specifically the "you're not X therefore..." component. In specific and certain "black communities" in the U.S. there is a century of indoctrination into collectivist thinking, combined with the "and you're oppressed by everyone not like you ... except me of course" aspect the left uses. Hell, they've used that line since the Civil War.

Once your parents and grandparents have been indoctrinated into that way of thinking, it is easy for you to carry it on. Here, specifically, the destruction of black families courtesy of Democrats' racism, strengthens it in many ways (all of which were part of Marx, Engels, and Lenin's proposed programs to end individualism). And once you think in collectivist terms such as your race and someone else's race, the avenue for your displeasure and resentment of anything you don't like is miles wide and obvious.

And because you've been conditioned into thinking in terms of groups, anyone who speaks as an individual using non-collectivist terms and thought patterns is "foreign" and easy to treat as a group that is opposed to yours. So you wind up voting for the people who have policies that actually are detrimental to your own desires because they "sound like" you and claim to be helping you.

It is also why those who escape it so often speak of their time in it the same way someone who escapes a cult speaks of their time.

To get a sense of how string this can be, let me mention a couple of things here. First, Anthem, by Rand.

Anthem was my first Ayn Rand book, and it was required reading by an English teacher in Tacoma Washington in high school. It is IMO deserving of far more prominence than it gets - even amongst Rand fans. At the core of it is the notion of a society that the very words "I" or "me" are unknown - that individuality is so stamped out the people in the society don't even have the words for it anymore.

It sounds far-fetched. Really, to me, while I found the notion fascinating it seemed about as far fetched as anarcho-capitalism used did. But what most of us don't know is that it is "now real" even more so than Atlas Shrugged. Anthem is alive and unwell in North Korea.

There is a woman who escaped there and has her own YT channel and has published a book about it. One of the things she has talked about is how in NK they don't say/think of things in terms of the individual. For example, she says, they don't say "I like " they say "we like." In North Korea that have almost completely eliminated even the language for individuality. They still have it, but only for "dear leader" - the only one allowed to be an individual.

Anyway, that's my nickel (two cents adjusted for inflation and word count). ;)