Dealing with modern people is like talking to kindergartners. Not only do they know nothing, but they have concepts they cling to which replace real ones with simplistic, pleasant images. This means that any discussion consists mostly of them insisting that the unreal is real and yelling at you for disrupting their happy vision.
If you wonder why conversations take on a remedial feel, and seem to involve endless fighting over definitions, you are seeing the triumph of the Left. When basic language and ideas are erased, discussion becomes impossible without starting from square one and rebuilding our understanding of the world at its simplest level.
Of course, the Left delights in this, as they do in all destruction. As individualists, their goal is to make the world burn so that they, and only they, will be in control of themselves. They want as close to zero oversight as possible in personal choices, the type that social conservatism opposes, and destroying order grants them that.
For those of us who are tired of the same old failure of social order, it makes sense then to bypass the neurotic squabbling over language and instead gain some actual understanding of what things are. This process both allows us to communicate and refines our own minds that precision of understanding.
With that in mind, it makes sense to look at a concept we toss around daily despite being uncertain as to its meaning. Identity refers to how we see ourselves at a level larger than the individual, but it also shapes who we are as individuals and resonates with our inner selves, including intuition. But what is it?
Identity is a prismatic concept. The term “prismatic” refers to something which is “highly varied or faceted” but also overlapping and repeating in different contexts. Identity is formed of religion, culture, race, class, ethnic group, region, and political orientation at its core, but may also include what Richard Spencer calls “elective” identities such as subculture, fandom, and other adopted beliefs. Those in turn reflect inner traits including class and political orientation. Notions like “white” replace complex identities with those that more resemble ideologies, which is what happens when political orientation replaces all other aspects of identity as is required to be part of the Left (for example).
Identity is not universal. There is no “human race” or “human nature.” There are instead many natures, perhaps as many as there are groups, although groups tend to cluster based on similar ethnic origins and type of society (hierarchical, tribal, anarchic).
Identity is self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, or a desire to make itself stable by dominating or driving out others; if it does not do this, they will dominate or drive out the group because being in power is the only way a group is safe from conquest. This means that you cannot expect any other group to act in the interests of your group, especially not if they say that they are, because the “game player” position is to claim one thing — to deflect criticism — and do another in order to achieve the actual goal. Similarly, it is insane for a majority to be outraged that minority groups are working against its interests. Of course they; this is their only winning strategy. No one likes to lose.
Identity is internal more than external. Some things, such as ideology or economic interest, can be imposed externally, or taught to people and reinforced with propaganda or social interaction. Others must come from what some call “the soul” and others believe is a form of intuition, or an inner value generated by the desire of the individual for positive things instead of in reaction to fears. Identity calls to people who want a center to life and a way of living that they can rely on to be the best possible option available to them, and this requires being willing to look past purely material and social concerns like wealth and popularity.
Identity salves existential fears. As social animals, most people fear being wrong, and they like to have simple principles that they can apply to any situation and either know they are right, or at least have a plausible case that they were not acting in bad faith. They want some order that they can trust so that if they act according to its values and toward achieving its purposes, they will be esteemed by their peers even if they fail.
Identity permits inequality. When a group of people work toward the same goal, they are able to take on unequal duties and receive unequal rewards because participation grants them a sense of place or role. This cements their inclusion in the group in a way that laws and economics cannot, namely as contributors who are vital, even if that role is minor in the big scheme of things. Regardless of the size of their contribution, they get to be part of something larger, and this imparts a sense of well-being and meaningfulness to their existence.
Identity is an end and not a means. Identity creates a transcendental goal, or one that can never be fully achieved but like a principle can guide all activity and show people a path to being respected by their peers. With identity, everything else — government, economics, popularity, power — becomes a means to the end of maintaining and advancing the purpose of that identity. This removes “runaway systems” such as for example consumerism which takes economics as an end in itself, and through this cultural guidepost, behavior is regulated through rewards instead of punishments alone.
Identity denies progress. Those who desire progress will inevitably find themselves seeking “new” methods of achieving abstract goals like equality; identity on the other hand is an ongoing goal in itself, so permits only qualitative improvement within the same methods. With identity, one does not seek Utopia, but merely gradual refinement of what has eternally been true, which provides a framework for incorporating external knowledge or new technologies that do not make those things ends in themselves.
Every group acts in self-interest only. You cannot control groups with laws and economics. They do what benefits them, and when they are minorities this is to ask for tolerance, but when they become strong, it is to abolish tolerance and force their standards on others. Each group hopes to lull the others into complacency, use guilt and shame to force them into submission, then to dominate them and genetically absorb them, effectively replacing them.
As with most complex concepts, maybe one percent of our people can parse it and understand it in depth, so identity will be something that most emulate based on a vague understanding and a gut instinct that it is not just correct but a path to something good, beautiful, and personally rewarding.
For those of us who see the importance of identity, our future lies in connecting the abstract idea with tangible real-world benefits including to individuals. Most of this will emerge from the thought that people will be included on the basis of behavior that fits the identity, instead of how much money they earn or stuff they own.
Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have led the way in this area. Trump connected economic self-interest of the nation and reward of exceptional individuals to lower taxes, which saved a dying economy; Farage united a strong national economy and more money taken home with breaking free from the EU, which provoked Establishment retaliation, proving his point.
So far, arguing identity in a vacuum, akin to environmentalists telling us that we should live in smaller homes because it is the right thing to do, has worked less well than pairing identity to its benefits. Those are: more social stability, so fewer externalized costs, and less of a need to support a parasitic social structure.
In other words, identity means a more functional society with fewer ambiguities, so fewer costs, and because it does not require the eternal crusade of egalitarianism, more money kept in the pocket of individuals who will no longer be subsidizing social entitlements policies. This can be a winning formula among the effective people out there.
In our current society, identity has been replaced by individualism, or the idea that no person needs any order greater than himself and certain social services and institutions to provide for him. As that notion spirals downward into disaster, people are ready for something else, but only if it does not place them at a material disadvantage.