Thursday, 9 March 2017

Some Thoughts On Identity Politics

Vox Day has written many times that all politics is identity politics, over at Amerika, Mr. Brett Stevens has an excellent article critiquing International Womens Day. In this article he writes the following

" Like most minority-against-majority politics, it creates a false "identity" based not on membership to a larger group"

Now I agree with what both of these men have written, but if all politics is identity based how can there be a false identity? Doesn't a false identity imply that there is no real identity, or to put it another way how can a person not know their real identity?

First let me answer why I agree with these men and why even though it seems as if they are disagreeing they are not. The reason both men are correct is because of the Conservative principle of Order. Order is the idea that everything has it's rightful place but that also means that everything has a wrongful place, a place it simply should not exist. So here we have the two both saying that things have a natural order and then we have Mr. Stevens pointing out that when that is upset then there is a false identity. For example it is right that people of a particular ethnicity should side with each other. Because an ethnicity is part of the natural order, it is organic and self perpetuating.

Unlike Feminism which is unnatural and non perpetuating, instead it can only exist by breaking up what is natural. It creates a false identity, it alienates people from their past, their present and in too many cases from their future. And here is where we leave Conservatism and move to Liberalism to answer the second point. Why is there such a thing as minority-against majority? Why does there exist unnatural things such as Feminism?

Liberalism is an acid and it destroys everything it touches, it is a wholly destructive force. Now Liberalism has two tricks it pulls, first it allies itself with things people like as in "Liberal Democracy". If you ask a random person what Democracy is they will most likely have an answer. Ask them what Liberalism is and they won't and there is their second trick, to pretend it doesn't even exist. Liberalism to most people is vaguely good, and both words are important.

Liberals, Classical, Left, Right, Feminist, Anarchist, Libertarian, Neo-Conservatives, will all tell you that Liberalism or to be more precise their brand of Liberalism seeks to build a better world. A world in which people will be freer and more prosperous, they often like to use the word progress to describe their idea of the future. But when they say freer, what do they mean?

They mean you should be free from your parents, from having a spouse, from your country, your religion. Then and only then can you be truly free, free from responsibility, free from worry, free from thought, free from consequences, free from reality. You can then be free to be a Liberal.

But to move from this world to that means destruction, everything that stands between there and here must be destroyed. Everything they do is about destruction. Which means they go looking for things that will help with that destruction. They look for weak points and try to drive a wedge in to make them bigger. They find groups of people who have a grievance and push them forward, they give them give support, organisational, money, slogans, whatever they need to push their grievance. It's not hard to find people with grievances, but it is hard to push them into doing what you want. Liberalism uses everything it has to push, fellow-travelers, the law, illegal action, it uses everything.

It creates false identities because they are just as destructive as natural identities. Everything is aimed at destruction because they think that when they have destroyed everything then they will rebuild everything in the image that they want. But once they have destroyed everything there will be nothing to rebuild with!

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Should We Still Call Ourselves Conservatives? 


  1. By starting out and saying order is the idea that everything has its rightful place is different to my dictionary meaning as in order of words in a phrase, sentence or as in calling to order. So your point is more in line with what was penned by Aristotle, who in turn based that idea on the basis he saw merit in the application of even more ancient natural law traditions. Whilst such a notion has waned in modernity it is true we do have a natural identity to our traditional cultural values reliant on the family unit and so forth which do define who we are- or our identity if you will. So I would agree some elements of feminism for instance do convey a sense of a false identity. Politically the nexus however is harder to define and is much more prevalent I think in the USA. However I would agree the idea inherit in liberalism that champion’s individualism does seem to work against our naturally occurring identity with its affinity to a collective based on common shared values. The problem as I see it is as we grow with technology and interdependence as in a global village it is hard to avoid ongoing contradictions which serve to perpetuate the current era of identity politics. There is also the risk of only defining who you are by what you oppose.

    1. Mr. Byrnes

      My dictionary gives 5 meanings to the word "order", three of which are applicable:

      2. a system or arrangement of things in relation to each other or in a series

      3. a state or condition

      4. a proper or right condition.

      The problem you mention is real, but not insurmountable. Travel and communication were once hard but are now easy and that does present problems. But most people want to be with people like them and that solves many of these issues, although of course not all. Which makes identity politics natural, what is not natural is the Left allying with others against there own people.

      As for the risk of only being defined by what we oppose I would say two things. Firstly we are all defined by what we oppose, secondly opposition is not enough we need to have a gaol as well.

      Mark Moncrieff
      Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future