One enduring criticism of the Identitarian worldview from the Left is that it is class collaborationist. To their eyes, it is a ruse to divide the working class (a transient concept, the true composition of which the Left never appears to agree on). As if in the grip of some spell, according to the Left’s narrative, workers are set against one another rather than their ‘oppressors’.
This is a very mechanistic view of humanity. It is true that ‘Old Right’ nationalism as a coherent ideology developed in tandem with the rise of capitalism, but what of that? Nationalism is just as likely to have developed as a reaction to urbanisation and the old supranational empires of Europe than as a convenient tool of the bourgeoisie. But today, Identitarianism transcends nationalism. It is concerned with people, not the State. Identitarians look further back.
The organic essence of tribal kinship and loyalty existed long before states did. Nor does Identitarianism facilitate the rulers of a given territory gaining the obedience of its people. In a sense, the elites of all lands have long been internationalist in outlook – forging alliances with other elites when it suited, whether this was to the benefit of the people or not. But the Left have always operated within a mechanistic sphere. Identitarians, on the other hand, recognise the innate importance of those little things like kinship, the familiar, mythos, and the concept of, and love of, home.
Marxists are pretty good at interpreting history – within any nation’s history there are internal conflicts and antagonisms that lead to lasting change. But they see things only on the material plane, and material alone does not humanity make. To Identitarians, the great revolts of the past intertwine with the great establishments into one binding national myth. Both high and low, our ancestors speak to us with one voice and help to form our identities today.
In England, we had two very English revolts in 1381 and 1536 – their grievance was not with the King but with officialdom. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule – 1649 anyone? However, this was one new emerging elite challenging the regime, and after Ollie we got his son, Dick. A royal line in all but name?) Our tribal instincts outweigh class conflict time and time again. Our historic rebels are interpreted as national heroes, not class warriors. The Sex Pistols are now national icons alongside Queen Elizabeth!
Of course, there are economic (and subtle cultural) differences within nations – and, indeed, among regional identities too. But without brushing aside social injustices, there are long, long-established social and cultural bonds of familiarity and fraternity within all ethnicities spanning all social backgrounds – and the national identities that have evolved from them are the base and starting point for how most of us who walk upright see our place in the world – as part of what Edmund Burke called our ‘little platoons’. And it’s like this because we evolved as little wandering bands. This remains part of our collective psychologies today.
Today’s ruling class have taken their hitherto latent internationalism a step further. We have a truly unified and global ruling class that strives to do away with nationhood, and has increasingly taken up the mantle of globalism. We are told that our nations don’t matter. We are told we are ‘citizens of the world’, and that our tribal identities are backward and antiquated.
Since the end of World War II, the ruling class have taken up internationalism with more enthusiasm, not merely because with it they can exploit the world’s people and resources more smoothly from an economic angle, but in a cultural and political sense too. In this way then, although anarchists and Marxists might, quite rightly, rage against the global elite’s economic exploitations, politically and culturally they are in the same camp.
Identitarians, who stand up against the multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism and the ‘One World’ illusions of the globalisers are, therefore, the real rebels of the new millennium.