A short while ago, I changed this site’s tagline to include the ‘identitarian’ label. But I haven’t written anything concrete that outlines why I’ve come to use this descriptor. Until now.
If I were to use any disparaging, while realistic label for some on the Right of politics, I would call them bad news merchants. In exhaustively lamenting tired issues–feminism, Islam, multiracialism, globalism, or the LGBT agenda–there is no shortage of Right-wing bemoaning going about. This isn’t to denigrate those who expose serious issues–I’ve criticised the modern world on hundreds of previous occasions, and will likely do so again. But there is surely a limit to outrage signalling, and what these reactionary responses can achieve; as opposed to the proactive tactics of those who seek to destroy us. Just like an army with a purely defensive posture will ultimately be pushed into the sea by a rampaging, offensive aggressor; the Right will inevitably lose if this paradigm is not changed though identitarianism or another potent, positive belief system.
More specifically to my view of identitarianism, a congrous society/ people necessarily requires a multi-facteted forms of collective identity among members. This ensures loyalties and common goals are upheld, whilst the scope for potential conflict is mitigated. The familiar problems listed at this post’s outset, are clearly all substantive issues in themselves. But we will never achieve a worthwhile order, without recognising that consensus on just 1 or 2 areas inadequately omits other pressing concerns.
Consider the following. Imagine after 40-50 years of non-consensual, largely third-world immigration into the West, that our borders were shut tomorrow. As joyful as this occasion would be, such a panacea would not solve our moral decay, nor stop white leftists from plaguing any attempts to reconstitute a functional, virtuous society. It thereby follows the only way to cure endemic divisions, is to move beyond pet issues and unify around various salient sources of identity: racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, national and political expressions. For any of these identities alone, cannot suffice in bringing a wholesale or lasting unity.
Moreover, there’s a crucial component of political action that only an identitarian-esque movement can address. Because the collective is more substantial in number than the individual, it necessarily derives further rights, importance and provides a more realistic vehicle for political change. It is far more compelling to assert: “Muslims should be deported because they brutalise Australian people,” than “Muslims should be deported because they brutalise me.” When more people are affected by political decisions, the stakes grow greater.
For these reasons, immigration must be approached with an understanding of ourselves as a distinct people. This can be thought of as an essential starting point required to maintain any civilisation. Just as two runners with different starting positions will end up in different destinations even if they held similar running abilities, people bearing contrasting allegiances will clamor for contrasting political action, even if they have access to the same information. Without a clear sense of identity, it becomes largely untenable to oppose mass immigration. In the choice words of Oz Conservative, “If you assume that you live in a society that only exists as a collection of self-creating individuals with no distinct ties to each other, then what is there really at the larger level to defend?”
In many respects, Burke’s civilisational pact–between the living, dead and those yet to be born–is identitarian, by providing a coherent conception of group identity. This pact ensures decisions are made according to sacred responsibilities that extend beyond the material present, and hence must be reiterated to secure our longevity.
Likewise, (accurately) perceiving our history through positive lenses, is key to the continuation of Burke’s vital pact. If a society is perceived as built on the bones of evil deeds, that society will inevitably commit suicide. The permanent allied triumph over Germany demonstrates that psychological attacks which dismember the morality of group identity, are far more powerful than guns, tanks or bombs.