When society organizes itself along tribal or identity lines, it is a mathematical certainty that all groups, including the majority, will eventually adopt that framework. The only solution to one form of identity politics is to eliminate all forms of it.
Related Insights
Resistance to mass immigration is often mislabeled as racism when it's a defense of cultural uniqueness. The core fear is that blending all cultures creates a bland 'beige' monolith, ultimately allowing the most aggressive and cohesive incoming culture to dominate.
When a demographic feels perpetually attacked for an unchangeable trait, they are psychologically primed to unify around that identity. This dynamic explains the rise of controversial figures who capitalize on that reactive sentiment, becoming a predictable societal counter-reaction.
Historically, men derived group identity from being "the default" within societal institutions. As these institutions lose their central hold, some men are experiencing a disorienting loss of power, leading them to form radical, grievance-based tribes to find a new sense of identity.
Populist figures don't create societal problems; they rise to power because existing economic and social issues create an environment where their message resonates. To solve the problem, you must address the underlying conditions, not just the leader who represents them.
While promoting tolerance, mass immigration risks erasing unique cultural differences, creating a homogenous world. In this "beige" environment, the most cohesive and aggressive culture with high birth rates and a clear agenda will inevitably become dominant.
Figures like Donald Trump don't create populist movements; they rise by capitalizing on pre-existing societal problems like economic despair. Focusing on removing the leader ignores the root causes that allowed them to gain power, ensuring another similar figure will eventually emerge.
In the aftermath of political violence, the targeted group often mirrors the very dehumanizing tactics they condemn. While correctly identifying an attacker's ideology, they risk escalating the conflict by applying labels like 'evil' to the entire opposing side, thus perpetuating the cycle of radicalization that fuels violence.
In times of extreme polarization, the political middle is not a safe haven but a kill zone. Moderates are targeted by both sides because they have no tribe to defend them. The escalating cost of neutrality forces everyone to pick a side, eliminating compromise and accelerating conflict.
Focusing on which political side is "crazier" misses the point. The fundamental danger is the psychological process of tribalism itself. It simplifies complex issues into "us vs. them," impairs rational thought, and inevitably leads to extremism on all sides.
The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.
