The youth living in the Western democracies have all been subjected to ruthless forms of social engineering, which has led to a serious identity crisis. These young people are actively searching for what it means to be who they are, and what their purpose in this world is, but answering this question comes with great difficulty. Due to the breakdown of the institutions that would traditionally bestow upon them their identity, namely the church and the family, the youth are being trapped into adopting false identities that lead to manipulation and social control.

Generation Identity

By Markus Willinger

This identity crisis was expressed, albeit rather crudely, in the book Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ’68ers written by Markus Willinger in 2013. Willinger, an Austrian, writes his book from the perspective of a European, but the social deconstruction and re-engineering that he lived through produces the same kind of identity crisis in both Europe and America. To be clear, this book was not published on behalf of the Identitarian movement by the same name (Generation Identity), and I’ve been told that Willinger was actually asked not to publish the book by the organization’s leadership.

For us young Millennials and “Zoomers” not in the know, 1968 was a year characterized by social turmoil in France, that began as student demonstrations ostensibly against capitalism, consumerism and American imperialism.[1] The slogans of these protesters were “Il est interdit d’interdire” (“It is forbidden to forbid”)[2] and “Read Reich and act accordingly!”[3] A notable moment of this protest movement was when these students, now known as the ’68ers mentioned in the title of Willinger’s book, threw copies of Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism at police.[4] Reich, of course, was one of the pioneers of sexual liberation,[5] and its development into a weapon against the social hegemony of the Church.[6]

The protests were animated by the spirit and the ideas of the Frankfurt School and its peddlers of Critical Theory like Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno and others. New-Left philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault[7] were in Paris at the time of the protests. What ensued after this incident was a complete breakdown of traditional norms in France, and kicked off a mass movement of left wing agitation and sexual liberation that quickly swept across Europe and indeed the entire West.

The result of this socio-sexual revolution together with the advent of contraception,[8] coupled with the fallout[9] of the revolutionary “spirit of Vatican II,” Europe experienced an almost complete breakdown of social norms, the effects of which we are all aware: low birthrates,[10] broken homes,[11] and declining church attendance,[12] which has ultimately led to the Great Replacement,[13] and the media campaign demonizing native European populations, and promoting foreigners, with a religion alien to the European continent as “The New Europeans.”[14]

Willinger’s book rambles somewhat poetically through the different issues he experienced as a young person with an identity crisis. Family life, loneliness, multiculturalism, sexuality, politics, religion and the longing for identity are just some of the 40 different aspects of this crisis he tries to come to grips with in his book. Unfortunately for Marcus, and the reader, I think he ultimately fails to come to a satisfactory understanding of his own identity.

The reader is left to make up his mind about what Marcus comes to believe, such as religion, where he says “sometimes we believe in something, sometimes in nothing.” The only things we know for sure by the end of this book is that he has declared war on the ’68ers, as he blames them for everything wrong with society today, and that he is now secure with his identity not in terms of his religion or his ethnicity, but as a “European.” Willinger writes:

“Smash your chains, brothers and sisters! The ’68ers have penned us up, to make us all alike. But we love difference! Rip down the artificial walls of our common prison! Be men and women, Europeans and Asians again!” [15]

How and why Willinger comes to this conclusion is somewhat mysterious. Willinger cannot speak in “European” because European is not a language. He could speak in German, but remember, he lives in Austria, and these two states don’t always exist in harmony, despite the shared language. The closest thing we will find explaining how he came to understand his identity as a “European” is found in chapter 32 “The Longing For Identity” where he states:

“Identities are formed within a context of contrasts and boundaries. If there were no women, masculine identity would play no role for men. If Europe was alone in the world, the European identity would be meaningless. He who says “Europe” must also say “Asia” and “Africa” in order to define its boundaries.” [16]

Unfortunately, Willinger’s error is twofold, and leaves him without a real identity. First, he falls into the trap of adopting a negative identity, meaning he allows himself to be defined by what he is not. Secondly he falls into the error of subjectivism when he speaks of how a young female solicitor will find her identity in her feelings as she finds herself in different social situations.[17]

With this rise of identity politics in both Europe and America, and having first-hand knowledge of the social instability it can cause, the nature of identity deserves a real exploration. So, what actually constitutes an identity?

Due to the subjective nature of identity, this can be something that is difficult to really nail down. Self-identification and subjectivism have become the new norm. People like Rachel Dolezal, a woman of European descent “self-identified” as a black woman and became a chapter president of the NAACP.[18] Worse still, Bruce Jenner came to the conclusion that he was born into a body with the wrong sex, and sought to mutilate himself in order to alleviate his body dysmorphia. To add to this subjectivist tyranny, anyone who contradicts these false “identities” may be subjected to fines,[19] hate speech laws,[20] and social ostracism.[21]

The big question among the group known as the Alt-Right is whether race solves the identity problem.

As Sam Francis admits in his famous speech “Inequality: Natural, Political and Social” given in 1994 at Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance conference: “If race were sufficient there would be no problem.”[22]

In an effort to minimize as much as possible this subjective nature of identity for our inquiry, I find it necessary to break this down into two major distinctions: that which is essential to identity and that which is accidental or contingent upon an already established identity. Something accidental or contingent would be hair color, whether you are right handed or left handed, and yes whether you are black or white.

There are three principles necessary to having an identity:

1. The fact that you exist is essential to identity. This existence is given to you primarily by God, the essential cause of everything that is. Therefore, the objective relationship between the Creator and His creation, is an indispensable aspect of your identity. This relationship is made manifest and put into practice through religion.

2. The act of questioning who you are, and searching for your identity means that you are a conscious, or rational creature, a characteristic that only human beings possess. An elephant is not capable of self-reflection, it cannot determine if it is a good elephant or decide one day that it is actually a cat. Identity is not a problem for irrational creatures as they are governed by nature, instinct, and circumstance, not by reason.

3. Identity comes into being as a synthesis of principles one and two. Identity involves a subjective affirmation of an objective state of affairs. It cannot be purely subjective in the Bruce Jenner sense of the term, where desire pretends to have complete hegemony over reality. It also cannot be purely unconscious, in the way that an elephant has an identity.

In order to study how social groups interact with each other, sociologists create categories based on observable, accidental characteristics, to put people into categories to make sense of observable data. The goal of the sociologist is to explain why people behave the way they do, without acknowledging the Creator, or anything immaterial. Categories like right handed or left handed, tall or short, skinny or fat, and black and white can be helpful in explaining reality as long as we remain aware that we can project meaning onto the reality which we are trying to describe.

For example, we could bring up the fact that the Italian word for left is “sinistra” and the French word is “gauche,” and derive from that evidence[23] the idea that left-handed people have been subject to unjust discrimination throughout human history because they were viewed as “sinister” or “awkward.” We might be told now, that the time has come to rectify that situation by programs that discriminate in favor of preferential treatment for left-handed people. However, nothing that I have mentioned here really has anything to do with the fact that some people are left-handed. We are talking about categories of the mind, abstracted from observable data, that have been given an emotional meaning and re-imposed on a fact of nature in order to achieve a particular political outcome.

This is precisely what happened with race in America over the course of the past 70 years, a period which also corresponds to the reign of social engineering in American life.[24] Now, we are entering a new phase. Outraged by the fact that they have been discriminated against by programs giving preferential treatment to left-handed people, the right-handed people have begun to attach their own meanings to the fact that they are right-handed. These meanings come without the awareness that their understanding of themselves as “dexterous”[25] (clever, cunning, handy) flows just as much from categories of the mind as the notion that left-handed people are “sinister” or “awkward.”

Aided by the media, America’s social engineers have been destroying real identities and replacing them with counterfeit identities for the lifetimes of practically everyone alive today. Mary Eberstadt addresses the issue in her own way by claiming that the sexual revolution created identity politics, but the issue is much broader than that, even though her statement is true. This ultimately leads us back to the ’68ers discussed in Willingers book. The fault, however, should not be laid at the feet of the guinea pigs of this terrible experiment, which were born between 1946 and 1964, but rather at the feet of Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and the social engineers of the Frankfurt school, who are all coincidentally Jewish, a fact that Willinger never addresses.

These confected false identities of white, black, feminist, even “racist” or “anti-fascist,” are not false because these people, behaviors, or traits can’t be observed; they are false identities because their meaning has been imposed from the outside, and they have no real bearing on that which is essential to identity, namely religion and language. The social engineers impose confected identities like white or black on the rest of us by determining the meaning of those of categories. They tell us that race determines behavior, but ultimately their arguments are based on the same logic that says left-handed people are sinister. Their conclusions derive from categories of their own mind, not reality. By defining the terms whereby people identify themselves, the sociologists manipulate them for their own ends, and one of the main ways they achieve this is by appointing the spokesmen for the groups they created or hope to destroy. They succeed to the extent those spokesmen internalize the commands of their oppressors. White supremacy does this just as effectively as Black Power, because both assume that race is a fundamental category which exists in reality, when in reality its meaning was determined by the oligarchs.

A dialectic is at play here, and anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can observe it. The thesis is that “all straight white men are evil racists perpetuating oppression and a patriarchal society”[26] and books like The Authoritarian Personality (Horkheimer & Adorno) are used to pathologize[27] the traditional family and societal structures of Christian Europe. The thesis also states that these “whites” must be demonized, dethroned and replaced in order to bring about a truly fair, free, egalitarian utopian society where oppressed minorities like blacks and Jews will become the oppressor.[28] It should be fairly obvious that this entire premise is a fiction.

Nevertheless, “whites” who recognize this assault on traditional norms and institutions that hold society together, understand this must be stopped, and volunteer to become the antithesis in this equation, which is what we saw embodied in the Alt-Right. They adopt this confected identity, putting themselves in a place of weakness (with all of the media and educational institutions united against them) and having become the boogeyman of society, fulfill the wishes of the social engineers by provoking violence and chaos. This was epitomized by the Charlottesville riot,[29] where I saw Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy and Mayor Mike Singer, smiling as they left the courthouse on August 13th, after their morning press conference in the wake of Heather Heyer’s death. Their dreams had come true, and their wishes had been fulfilled by demonized young men in search of their identity.

What’s worse, by promoting “white identity,” the Jews responsible for the mess the West finds itself in today ultimately disappear, and become indistinguishable from the dumb “goyim”[30] who have fallen for their trap: hook, line and sinker. This is something that Sam Francis unwittingly admits in his 2000 speech “Race and the American Right” when he said “they should have accused him [Al Sharpton] of being anti-white, which would have covered both Jews and whites.”[31]

Will Herberg proposes a solution for the American identity crisis in his book Protestant, Catholic, Jew[32] by adopting religious identity as the foundation of ethnicity in America, since Americans already share a common language. In this way there is still room for both inter-ethnic struggle, and intra-ethnic struggle as observed in reality and outlined from a Catholic perspective in Dolores Ann Liptak’s book European Immigrants and the Catholic Church in Connecticut.[33]

Adopting a religious identity fulfills the essential requirement needed to have a positive identity that isn’t just a materialist accident imposed on us by Jewish sociologists. Furthermore by choosing a Catholic identity, we have the added peace of mind coming from the fact that it has an objective system of beliefs which cannot be jeopardized by a subjectivist interpretation of the scriptures, or abused by grifters who sell out their people for worldly gain. Although it’s true, that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by homosexuals, Jews, and bad leadership, the Catholic faith is too old and too deeply internalized and too minutely codified to be co-opted by the evil intentions of social engineers or even the whims of a bad pope (of which there have been many). Eventually the current storm will subside, as storms have subsided in the past, and our identity will emerge once again as clearly as the moon on a star-lit night.

This is the complete article from Culture Wars Magazine. If you enjoyed this article and would like to support our work please consider purchasing the December, 2019 edition of Culture Wars Magazine! Thank you!