Millennial Article

How the Left Has Been Winning the Culture War

At the heart of Generation Identity is the concept of metapolitics. It is our raison d’être, it is at the basis of everything we do and it is indispensable to our struggle. To understand the effectiveness of our activism, one must first understand metapolitical action. So what is metapolitics? It constitutes a form of political activity that is primarily concerned with culture, ideas and values.  Instead of contesting for people’s votes via electioneering, we contest for people’s minds via on-the-street activism. We engage in a culture and information war, constantly aiming to feed our ideas into the political bloodstream in order to shift what we call the ‘Overton window’, that is the window of what speech is considered acceptable.  Our activism serves to normalise our ideas, to popularise our identitarian concepts, to spread awareness of our country’s biggest threats, to reverse the dehumanisation which patriots have been subjected to, to act as a pressure on the state and patriotic parties and to activate the silent majority. Watch Martin Sellner explore the theoretical background to Metapolitics Here.

History is littered with successful metapolitical movements like ours, the most recent and most monumental example of this being perhaps the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The 1960s saw a seismic shift in the metapolitical landscape of both North America and Europe. A vocal minority noisily challenged the well-established traditional values of their contemporary society and managed to bring about a complete change in the zeitgeist. Traditional philosophies were supplanted by the philosophy of ‘progressive free love’. Who was at the source of this metapolitical success? Whilst it is difficult to pin down to one group or factor, we can attribute much of the responsibility to the ‘New Left’, a broad movement of activists who campaigned on issues such as feminism, gay rights, abortion, gender roles, drug policy reform etc. What is important about the New Left however, is that they, like us, wanted a complete overhaul in the values and culture of the status quo. They rejected the ‘Old Left’, thus they abandoned dialectical materialism, labour issues and the class struggle in favour of social issues and fighting for ‘minority groups’.

Their reasoning was that the Old Left’s focus on class was unsuccessful, and so they had a rethink, deciding that moving forward they were going to transition to the values of counter-culture, meaning they would push ideas that conflicted with the traditional social norms of the time. Their rejection of the Old Left is very similar to our rejection of the Old Right for their repeated failures over the past few decades. Through non-violent civil disobedience and activism, New Left groups created a counter-vision and counter-culture that appealed to the youth. Some famous examples of their activism include when 3,000 ‘Yippies’ (an offshoot from the hippie movement) took over Grand Central terminal in New York during their celebration of the Spring Equinox in 1968. In 1967, two Yippy leaders led an action that attempted an exorcism and levitation of the Pentagon, whereby activists surrounded the Pentagon and began chanting ritualistic chants. The idea behind this was to perform something that matched the absurdity of the Vietnam War.

For decades now, the left has been winning the culture war, and only recently have we witnessed a comeback from the right. We’re experiencing this cultural fightback in two main ways, one being alternative media and the other being patriotic street movements.  They are complementary and not in conflict with each other, since while one counters the ideology of multiculturalism in the digital space and helps redpill many normal people, we in Generation Identity mobilise those awakened people. We offer them a platform to do something, since they can embed themselves in the cultural struggle by partaking in actions, much like the New Left did during the 1960s. Generation Identity has scored immense successes already, as both Defend Europe campaigns yielded tangible results. While the first mission in the Mediterranean was ongoing, Italy decided to close all its ports to the NGOs and Libyan authorities banned them from their waters. After the second mission in the Alps, the French Interior Ministry promised to send troops to the French-Italian border to clamp down on illegal immigration. These two symbolic actions mustered enough pressure on the elites that they addressed the concerns raised. As opposed to staying at home leaving comments on online forums and comment sections, our members have bravely opted to get on the streets and do something for their country. For Generation Identity offers them a vision and a blueprint to affect real political change, rather than endless rallies and mindless edgy stunts. We channel the political frustrations of the youth into smart, creative, original and tactful activism. While doing this, we try to maintain our professional, disciplined, dynamic and organised image, as we understand the importance of all these things in communicating our message and shifting the Overton window. We play the long game, aspiring to capture the minds of the majority in order to shape public opinion and therefore redefine the parameters of the Overton window.  We provide the European youth more than just the option to like and share videos or vote every 5 years. We are the generation that have answered the call to defend what’s ours.


About the Author

Benjamin Jones is Leader of Generation Identity United Kingdom.

Walk the Talk: The Importance of Showing Face

Consequences Matter

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a consequence is defined simply as ‘a result of something that has happened.’ Generally speaking though, we tend to associate the term with unfortunate or unpleasant experiences that follow our decisions; often bad ones. It’s both potential and perceived consequences that often prevent people from taking action or making decisions. But I wish to argue that no action is worth taking unless it entails them. No better example can be found within politics and political activity.

Opinions Are Cheap

Nowadays, the age of mass-movements is over. Party memberships have collapsed, and the only mass form of political participation consists of voting; although turnouts are at an all-time low and only general elections attract any interest. Yet even a rudimentary familiarity with the Internet and social media will expose a person to the sheer amount of opinions that are being thrown around and, seemingly, from all parts of society. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and an endless ocean of websites and blogs offer those brave enough to survey them political opinions of every colour. As the basic economic principle tells us, they exist because demand for them exists. What, then, are all these millions of social media-users doing with these opinions?
Usually, people just seek out confirmation of their prejudices. A conservative is unlikely to read the Guardian (unless he wants something to be angry about) and a liberal is unlikely to have a subscription to the Mail on Sunday. Ultimately, people want their sentiments echoed back at them; it’s nice to know people agree with our own perspectives and to see them having their cases being made for us. But why, if we’re interested in political ideas and developments, do so few of us get involved ourselves? Simple…Consequences.

Having an opinion is easy but representing and defending it before an audience is another thing altogether. After all, you might lose a debate, get called an unpleasant name or find yourself having to give up your already limited free time. People already more qualified are probably already out there doing it for you. Having now been involved in street-level political activism for a year, I can guarantee you that there aren’t nearly enough (regardless of your political alignment). And again, consequences are to blame. To advocate an opinion in the offline sphere is hard. It costs money, it ruins relationships, it’s bad for your health, it’ll affect your sleep, it’ll expose you to some of the worst the species has to offer…And that’s only a tenth of it. The simple fact of the matter is that most people don’t bother to represent their ideas in the public sphere because it’s challenging and intimidating. This is especially true for people who are, in some shape or form, fighting the establishment and the status-quo. But this is what makes them so special…

Actions Speak Louder Than Tweets

Unlike the Greeks of Antiquity, the politically active don’t have an agora in which to take part in decision-making or debate. Institutions are shut off to all but the elite and the wealthy and being heard in the cacophony of ideas a seemingly impossible task. They do it anyway. And Identitarians are there amongst them. Young men and women without political experience, support and (usually) enough funding give up their security, time and resources to have their say. Whether it be via debate or thought-provoking activism, they’re a veritable patriotic David fighting a globalist Goliath. And almost every single one of them ‘shows face.’

In Generation Identity, this short expression is what it says on the tin and so much more. Whilst it literally means, well, showing your face in photos, videos and in the public sphere, it also means fusing your political ideas with your identity. This is crucial. Unlike an anonymous Twitter account, a personality and a name can’t simply turn off their computer and delete social media posts in order to be forgotten about. This makes one’s opinions much more valuable and, in the long-term, mature. You’ll become fonder of them for having stuck with them through thick and thin, for having defended them against vast arrays of opponents who would like to see them extinguished. In addition, you’ll learn a lot about yourself. You’ll learn just how much you value your ideas, opinions and sentiments. For many people, they quickly decide that they’re not quite as crucial to one’s life as they once thought. In other words, showing face separates the sincere from the hobbyists.

Depoliticisation and a Coward’s Utopia

Before the Ballot Act of 1872, voting in Britain was a public affair. That is to say, it was exceptionally difficult to conceal who you were voting for. Whilst this could lead to all sorts of unpleasant and violent confrontations, it did mean that those casting a vote were determined enough to do so in the first place; it was no trivial affair. Nowadays, around 1 percent of the electorate read party manifestos, a very large percentage can’t name their MP and I’m willing to bet many millions have never heard of ‘bicameralism.’ Political organisation outside of the state-sponsored channels is unofficially discouraged, precisely because it can have such an impact. Lacklustre turnouts are hailed as ‘expressions of democracy’ when all parties concerned know fully well most voters were poorly-informed or largely disinterested. In other words, the powers that be don’t want any political activity beyond votes for ‘established’ political parties. They don’t wish to broaden the debate or stimulate a discourse. Those who revel in anonymity and exhaust their energies online are their perfect bedfellows.

A Few Concluding Remarks…

1) An opinion is a trinket if it isn’t acted upon and advanced in a practical way.
2) You’re not obligated to take anyone seriously who talks and doesn’t act.
3) Consequences ennoble our actions, they’re proof that we taken the, seriously as well-rounded human beings.
4) Anonymity is uncouth, unintelligent and a detriment to the development of the nation’s political life.
5) Identitarians and Generation Identity will always show face, use their real names and serve as living testaments to their ideas; come what may.


About the Author

Benjamin Jones is Leader of Generation Identity United Kingdom.

Generation Identity's Response to ‘Generation Hate’

Ever since its inception, Generation Identity has faced fierce hostility from the established press. Continually and deliberately mischaracterising our words and our actions, it has worked tirelessly to undermine our efforts in bringing about a safe and secure Europe. Why has it done so? Because, with the guidance of globalist politicians and their vast wealth, it has identified that our movement is the single greatest threat to their monopoly on power. This is why, even in those countries where our movement is young and relatively small, we’ve received unprecedented coverage.

The latest attack on our movement has come from Al Jazeera, a Qatari propaganda outlet which has incessantly endorsed Islamist ideas and factions. Not satisfied, for instance, with promoting the extremist Muslim Brotherhood it also employs senior figures who praise terrorists as “pan-Arab heroes.” In fact, Al Jazeera has been accused of a number of unpleasant tendencies ranging from overt anti-Semitism to ingrained corruption. Despite this, the enemies of the Identitarian Movement have readily consumed its recent piece ‘Generation Hate’ without scrutiny or debate.

This piece focuses on ‘The Citadel’, a bar in the French city of Lille. This bar isn’t a part of Generation Identitaire but acts as its own, distinct political entity. As is widely known to locals, the bar serves figures and guests from various political backgrounds. Just as any regular pub has no role in monitoring the general conversation of guests and customers, the Citadel is no different; individuals attend privately. The documentary predominately follows the exploits of two figures (neither of whom are activists with Generation Identity). This is telling, for GI in France boasts thousands of members and many more associates. After ‘many months’ of undercover work, it seems that Al Jazeera was only able to pin-down two drunks indulging in nonsensical fantasies. Two instances stand out while this pair are being filmed. The first is a rant about using a vehicle to strike and kill Muslims. The second is a skirmish in the streets as the same individual pushes (and it seems punches) an Arab woman. Both of these acts are reprehensible and do not represent the established views and conduct promoted by Identitarians in France for nearly twenty years. The fact of the matter is that these Old Right hooligans drank at a bar that uses Identitarian iconography; this is the long and short of Al Jazeera’s great efforts to defame the movement.

Everything Generation Identity does is predicated on the notion of metapolitics. This is the theory that before political change can be affected, cultural change must be brought about. Violence of any sort is, as you might expect, totally ineffectual in achieving this. Culture, being a complicated and lived-in thing, must be approached with care and long-term discourses. Thus, before we even consider Generation Identity’s ethical qualms with violence, it’s clear that our worldview has no use for it even in strictly neutral terms. Every branch of Generation Identity carefully vets its applicants. It does so for several reasons. Firstly, it does this because it only wishes to attract intelligent, well-rounded and disciplined personalities. The second reason is to keep any persons harbouring undesirable tendencies away from the movement. This includes anyone who advocates violence, chauvinism or conspiracy theories. Our young branch in the United Kingdom has been exceptionally successful in conducting skillful vetting and immediately removing anyone who slips the net (which, in our case, has consisted of just one individual).

Generation Identity, the Identitarian Movement, is strictly non-violent, non-chauvinist and forward-looking. We reject violence as unethical. Indeed, we invite our fiercest critics to find an example of this within Generation Identity UK and Ireland or any other genuine branch. We hold steadfast to bold and radical ideas, ideas that we believe must be realised if our civilisation and values are to survive. We do so with the absolute belief that we can secure a future for our ethno-cultures peacefully and entirely within the law. While Al Jazeera and Co waste time with drunks in bars, real journalists will be documenting the full extent of Islamist terror throughout Europe which has, and continues, to claim dozens of lives each and every year.


About the Author

Benjamin Jones is Leader of Generation Identity United Kingdom.

Bond and Belonging: An Interview with Generation Identity's Ben Jones

The Visionable: When did you join Generation Identity and what initially attracted you to the movement?

Ben Jones: I joined Generation Identity in January 2018. Before then I’d never been actively involved in politics; although I’d always had political sentiments. I’m somewhat unusual in that I didn’t join because of Martin Sellner or because of a particular action. I signed up specifically because Identitarianism and the European New Right resonated with me. They were coherent, bold and radical ... without resorting to the usual tropes of the ‘Right’ in the English-speaking world. These have been, and are, ineffective.

TV: In context of nationalism, what is your impression of Millennials in the United Kingdom in terms of worldview and vision for their future?

Ben: Millennials are effectively the first generation in history to lack an ‘example.’ That’s especially the case for young people of European descent. We’ve been robbed of the cultural and communal forces that other peoples have whether it be civilisational, spiritual or folkish. We grow up as social atoms without any real foundations, without ‘ways’ so to speak. A sense of national belonging and a cultural inheritance provide focus and grounding. How are we to conduct our lives as young Europeans? The answers lie with our forebears.

TV: Can you speak broadly to the types of people GI resonates with? Are GI supporters predominantly students, young professionals, or cross-generational, and are they of similar or differing political and socio-economic background?

Ben: Generation Identity appeals to a whole host of personalities and characters. Naturally, we’re a youth movement. So, we appeal to students, young professionals and older persons who are tired of the established political currents. I can’t speak of the make-up in Continental branches, but in the UK we still have a stubborn class-system. Our members and activists come from all aspects of the social strata. It’s something I’m exceptionally proud of.

TV: What are the most pressing issues facing the UK that GI addresses?

Ben: It’s been expressed to me by senior figures within Generation Identity that the United Kingdom is the most authoritarian state in Western Europe. I agree with this analysis. The country is rife with hysterical social and political figures who want to censor and silence their opponents. For many decades, our ‘right’ has been misrepresented by charlatans and incompetents. Generation Identity is the first organisation of its kind to emphasise real moral courage in response to this. In addition, the Great Replacement is sweeping across the country as we find ourselves becoming a minority in our largest towns and cities.

TV: What gives you reason to believe GI will be successful in reversing the Great Replacement of Europeans in their native homelands?

Ben: It all comes down to our ability to take young, passionate people and make them shine like diamonds. We give them the ideas, the theories and moral courage to mount a challenge to the status-quo. Already we’re developing ties with populist and patriotic parties across Europe. We’re campaigning to ensure they uphold their promises and avoid being put on the defensive.

TV: How has GI been mischaracterized, and by whom, and how do you address the false accusations?

Ben: Anyone who addresses the Great Replacement, opposes globalisation and mass-immigration, will inevitably be accused of being ‘far-right.’ The establishment, and its supports, use a lexicon in order to stifle debate and harass their opponents. Being called a ‘fascist’ for instance, is almost like being called a heretic in the 13th century. George Orwell recognised that terms such as this were being misused as early as the 40s. What the establishment is essentially trying to do is shut us off from the broader political discourse via fear of association. They know that when we’re given the opportunity to speak freely, our ideas resonate with millions.

TV: What would you like to share with anyone considering supporting or joining GI, and who may be hesitant?

Ben: If you’re reading this, it’s because you’re concerned about the future of your country, your people and your civilisation. Unfortunately, watching YouTube videos and sitting behind an anonymous Twitter account aren’t going to change anything; the day after tomorrow never comes. Generation Identity is offering you a means of making a difference in a peaceful, intelligent and, yes, enjoyable way. You don’t have any excuses left. The time for action, for change, is now.

 

Visionaries: the Vision and Values

The Vision

The Visionable aims to harness the potential of Millennials as the next generation of leaders to create an actionable vision for the future. Strengthened by cross-generational mentorship, Millennials will utilize the information, human networks, and a targeted set of tools offered by The Visionable to restore our democracies, cultures, and civilizations.

The Mission

The Visionable’s mission is to accomplish the return of democracy in our nations through a clear and actionable long-term vision. Now, more than ever, the West needs the values and principles of an international order of politically independent nation states founded upon the rule of law, free markets, and democratic sovereignty in societies comprised of a shared culture.

Our strategy is to inform Millennials with fact-based news and information that inspires them to create change within an influential grassroots network of citizens, voters, activists, thought leaders, and future representatives in government, innovation, and enterprise.

The three strategic pillars of factual ideas and information, an influential grassroots network, and pro-democracy tools will enable Millennials to lead the renewal of Western civilization where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society are valued, preserved, and flourish for generations to come.

The Values

The Visionable upholds the ideals of western nations and civilizations founded upon an international order of politically independent nation states. We believe the evidence suggests this natural organization of human beings provides the greatest opportunity for the best quality of life for all.

Shared Culture Citizenry

  • Societal Foundations upon Family and Heritage

  • Individual Initiative and Responsibility

  • Health and Scholastic Excellence

  • Compassionate Support for the Vulnerable

  • Conservation of Environment and Resources

Democratic Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

  • Direct Democracy of Representatives and Legislation

  • Responsible and Limited Governance

  • Freedom of Speech and Assembly

Free Market Economy

  • Creation of Wealth and Enterprise

  • Innovation and Competitive Advantage

  • Limited Regulation and Bureaucratic Interference

The Visionable also believes that the most effective solutions to the challenges facing the West are consistent with these core values.

Visionaries

Our subscribers and patrons create an online community where these Visionaries receive quality, fact-based news and analysis, the latest contextual articles on societal trends and issues, and opportunities to network and become active offline.

Visionaries value individual character that is rooted in honesty, integrity, and idealism expressed with civility and respect as we give our time and energy for a higher cause. Millennials are waking up to realize that many elements of modern culture are hypocritical and leave us feeling disconnected from ourselves and others.

We reject the ego-driven agendas of traditional politics, the mainstream news media, and crony capitalism.

We seek meaning and a spiritual understanding of our lives whether through the acknowledgment of the existence of an omniscient metaphysical reality, search for or follow a genuine spiritual path, or a strong sense of cultural community.

We eliminate or minimize the influence of consumerism, senseless and unrestricted hedonism, and social engineering that unnecessarily divides people rather than recognizes the inherent worth of human beings as integral in communities.

By acknowledging these, among other unique traits of the western Millennial worldview, Visionaries can clearly identify and preserve that which positively conceives the continuity of western civilization, and tackle the challenges we face, for better lives and futures.

LISTEN | The Agora - Episode 2

Welcome to the latest installment of Generation Identity's new podcast, the Agora.

Each episode will be led by UK Leader, Ben Jones, with activists from across the movement joining as guests.

In the second episode of the Agora, UK Leader Ben Jones is joined by activists Mark and Joe to discuss mounting censorship of patriotic ideas and the opportunities for a populist party in the UK. For those unfamiliar with the term 'Agora', it refers a "gathering place" or "assembly".

The Problem of Democracy

In his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, George Orwell had this to say about democracy…

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy…

This is the ‘problem’ of democracy that Alain de Benoist attempts to unravel in his work ‘The Problem of Democracy.’ What exactly is this elusive form of government that everyone claims to endorse and in so many differing ways? In many respects no man is better qualified to answer this question. de Benoist is the seminal thinker of the so-called European New Right (a name conjured up by the media), an intellectual movement that originated in the late sixties. A prolific writer of articles, books and journals, his interests have stretched from ethno-cultural identity and environmentalism, to Indo-European religion and a critique of capitalism. His intellectual rigour, respect for a free-exchange of ideas and disinterest in censorship has won him admiration from those on both the traditional Left and Right of politics.

de Benoist begins by suggesting that there are two fundamental ways of defining ‘democracy.’ The first uses an etymological approach. As many people are aware, the term stems from demos (the people) and -kratia (power, rule). In other words, it’s a form of government in which power lies with ‘the people.’ This is the prevailing approach throughout much of the world and, as a cursory consideration of the matter will reveal, it’s a hopelessly vague one. Instead, de Benoist suggests an alternative approach; an historical one. He contends that as the Greeks of Antiquity gave us the term (and the corresponding idea) we should look to them for answers.

Greek democracy had three principle features: isonomy (equality before the law, isotimy (equal rights to access all public offices), and isegory (freedom of expression). It was a direct form of democracy, in which all citizens could take part in the ekklesia or assembly. Citizens didn’t rely on ‘representatives’, they fully participated in the political discourse. Indeed, they were expected to as a part of their citizenship. Already, then, we see a stark difference between Greek democracy and the representative democracies of today in the likes of the Western world. The very term ‘demos’, which is of Doric origin, refers to people who reside in a given territory. This is the next crucial observation made by de Benoist. Greek democracy rested on the notion of citizenship which, in turn, rested upon shared ancestry, shared institutions and shared cultural practices. As de Benoist writes, ‘to be a citizen meant, in the fullest sense of the word, to belong to a homeland – that is, to a homeland and a past.’

With an almost ruthless and tidal analysis, de Benoist also confronts the notion that liberalism (understood in the classical sense) has no direct relationship with democracy understood in an historically. More than this, he challenges the notion that democracy is inevitable (as a product of linear history) or inferior or superior to any other form of government. He acknowledges that, whilst forms of direct democracy have always had a place in the European experience, it’s alien to other people and civilisations around the globe. He cites Moses I. Finley who wrote “It was that sense of community, fortified by the state religion, by their myths, and their traditions, which was an essential element in the pragmatic success of Athenian democracy.”’ He added, “in Greece, freedom meant the rule of law and participation in the decision-making progress, not the possession of inalienable rights.”

What ‘The Problem of Democracy’ really exposes is that the so-called ‘democracies’ of today share nothing in common with the democratic tradition of those who produced it; the ancient Greeks. But why should this matter? After all, the Greeks were organising themselves in small city-states in a radically different epoch with radically different challenges. It matters because human nature doesn’t change, regardless of the externals. Despite the romantic, melioristic ramblings of the classical liberals’ human beings aren’t simply ‘Individuals.’ We’re the product of an evolutionary discourse stretching back millions upon millions of years. A social species, we’re defined by our physical and cultural characteristics and a role and a place within an historic collective. This is why direct forms of democracy are so powerful. They’re predicated on participation. By participating in the political, in institutions and the culture that shapes them, we cease to be a social atom and find our place in the historical project that is our people.

Liberal democracies simply depoliticise society by creating a society of rootless, atomised ‘individuals’ driven solely by economic impulses. Our ‘participation’ is reduced to appointing alleged experts who then proceed to pursue self-interest uncontested until the next election. If the Greeks were right, the answer is simply a question of learning to govern ourselves as a people. No representatives, only delegates appointed by an ethno-cultural group cognizant of its roots and identity. This short book, or perhaps lengthy essay, is a must read for critics of the prevailing order, liberalism and globalism.

To conclude, a particularly powerful passage from its finale…

Democracy means the power of the people, which is to say the power of an organic community that has historically developed in the context of one or more given political structures – for instance a city, nation, or empire. Where there is no folk but only a collection of individual social atoms, there can be no democracy. Every political system which requires the disintegration or levelling of peoples in order to operate – or the erosion of individuals’ awareness of belonging to an organic folk community – is to be regarded as undemocratic.


About the Author

Benjamin Jones is Leader of Generation Identity United Kingdom.

LISTEN | The Agora - Episode 1

photo_2019-03-18_16-07-40.jpg

Welcome to the first installment of Generation Identity's new podcast, the Agora.

Each episode will be led by UK Leader, Ben Jones, with activists from across the movement joining as guests.

This week's guests are London Regional Lead, Charlie Fox and North West Regional Lead, Charlie Shaw. For those unfamiliar with the term 'Agora', it refers a "gathering place" or "assembly". The Agora was the centre of the athletic, artistic, spiritual and political life of the city in Ancient Greece, a place where people could come and discuss and debate with one another.

Are You Really Conservative or Liberal?

When I read about clashes around the world – political clashes, economic clashes, cultural clashes – I am reminded that it is within our power to build a bridge to be crossed. Even if my neighbor doesn’t understand my religion or understand my politics, he can understand my story. If he can understand my story, then he’s never too far from me. It is always within my power to build a bridge. There is always a chance for reconciliation, a chance that one day he and I will sit around a table together and put an end to our history of clashes. And on this day, he will tell me his story and I will tell him mine.
— Paulo Coelho

Humanity is a polarity existence and we exist in a polarized world, but we all contain an imperfect balance within ourselves of seemingly opposing forces. The most contentious of forces that divides humanity is morality.

Our personal moral foundations cause the greatest struggles for balance between individual liberty and social order. There are three factors that determine our moral foundations and why we are, or think we are, either conservative or liberal: biology, psychology, and our worldview.

A Divided Brain

Why is the brain divided? This is what psychiatrist Dr. Iain McGilchrist has sought to understand in over twenty years of research. He aims to prove there is a growing imbalance in our brains and help us understand how this makes us increasingly unable to grapple with critical economic, environmental and social issues; ones that shape our very future as a species. He believes that one half of our brain – the left hemisphere – is slowly taking power, and we in the Western world are simultaneously feeding its ambitions. This half of the brain is very proficient at creating technologies, procedures and systems, but it cannot understand the implications of these on the people and the world around it.

The right hemisphere understands the world. It sees the big picture of an interconnected world, understands relationships and body language. It is sustained, broad, open, vigilant, and alert, and creates art, intuition, interest, and imagination. The left hemisphere manipulates the world. It cannot make connections and sees the world as separate parts where details are important but not relationships, things and people are not unique and individual, and groups can organize the world into rules and bureaucracy. It is narrow, sharply focused, attention to detail, and sorts and files things into a system, perceiving people as body parts and can’t see how it all fits together. As human beings, we could not exist independently of either hemisphere, we need both perspectives through which to view and understand the world.

Dr. Helen Fisher’s research led her to understand how brain chemistry determines our personality and politics. Serotonin is more abundant in conservatives with traits including familiarity, being cautious but not fearful, calm and controlled, structured and orderly, fact-oriented and precise, having more close friends, networks, community, and an importance of belonging, being respectful, following the rules, conscientiousness, loyalty, and dependability. Dopamine is more abundant in liberals with novelty seeking and risk-taking behaviour, curiosity, restlessness, independence and self-reliance, impulsiveness, spontaneous decisions, physical and mental exploration, idea generation, mental flexibility and open-mindedness. Estrogen is the liberal with economic regulation and personal freedom, where Testosterone is the conservative with economic freedom and personal regulation. As we know, we all have these hormones in our bodies and imbalances create physical, mental, and emotional health issues.

 

Five Moral Foundations

Dr. Jonathan Haidt and a group of social and cultural psychologists sought to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. Their theory, the five moral foundations, proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too.

  1. Care/Harm: our mammalian evolution for empathy, attachment, kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

  2. Fairness/Cheating: the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism, justice, rights, autonomy, and proportionality.

  3. Loyalty/Betrayal: our tribal history in forming shifting coalitions, patriotism, and self-sacrifice.

  4. Authority/Subversion: our primate history of hierarchical social interactions, leadership, followership, deference to legitimate authority, and respect for traditions.

  5. Sanctity/Degradation: shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination, underlying religious notions of living in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way, the body is a temple that can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants.

Dr. Haidt and his colleagues’ research applied this theory to political "cultures" of liberals and conservatives. They discovered the current American culture war can be viewed as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/Harm foundation supported by the Fairness/Cheating and Liberty/Oppression foundations. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, determine morality using all six foundations.

 

Your Worldview

In his 1987 book, A Conflict of Visions, economist Thomas Sowell argues that the opposing moral values of conservatives and liberals are intimately linked to the vision a person holds about human nature, either as constrained (conservative) or unconstrained (liberal). Sowell argues that controversies over seemingly unrelated social issues such as taxes, welfare, social security, health care, criminal justice, and war repeatedly reveal a consistent ideological dividing line along these two conflicting visions, the Constrained Vision and the Unconstrained Vision. Depending on which view of human nature you believe to be true will largely determine how you believe issues should be addressed:

If human options are not inherently constrained, then the presence of such repugnant and disastrous phenomena virtually cries out for explanation—and for solutions. But if the limitations and passions of man himself are at the heart of these painful phenomena, then what requires explanation are the ways in which they have been avoided or minimized… In the unconstrained vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment. But in the constrained vision, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by these civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off.

Balance in a Complex World

Essentially, we are born predisposed to being either liberal or conservative at an intuitive and instinctual level, with our moral values predetermined by our brain structure, mix of hormones, moral emotions and reactions, and temperament. This explains why people can be predictably partisan about a range of issues that are seemingly unconnected. Yet both sides of the equation are valid, necessary, and true and can complement and balance out the negative extremes of the other.

As human beings, we have far more in common than what differentiates and divides us. We are all somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative and a person must no longer be both an economic and social liberal or conservative. All humans hold multiple contradictory beliefs and opinions at once, even when we recognize this inherent hypocrisy within ourselves.

Traditional partisan lines are changing in an increasingly polarized political arena. Most people, and likewise most Millennials, are broadly libertarian-minded progressive conservatives, where they do not necessarily feel compelled to hold others to the same value system they hold for themselves, they just want to live their lives and allow others to live theirs so long as harm does not cross the bough. When we can understand where the other person is coming from with respect to consideration of moral foundations, we are more likely to find a path forward that is more effective in dealing with the issues in a fact-based manner that can actually lead to positive developments and results.

Don't Dismiss Millennials

As the largest generation in history, there are approximately two billion Millennials worldwide at 30% of the global population and outnumbering Baby Boomers, who were previously the largest. In Western democracies, this breaks down to 180 million in the United States, between 10 and 24 million across Europe, and 5 and 9 million in Canada and Australia, respectively.

 Currently aged 18 to 38, Millennials will be 75% of the global workforce by 2025. Millennials vastly outnumber every other generation in developing and emerging countries, where the average age of some nations are in the low twenties and even high teens, as well as in many established democracies with their higher median ages. American Millennials alone are the third largest segment in the world, behind Asia and Africa, at 56% of the country’s population and 35% of the workforce. 

As Baby Boomer retirement accelerates, Millennials have come of age. Our generation are the leadership our societies need and are fully capable of leading the positive transformational evolution that’s beginning to take place. The legacy of Millennials, and what the future will look like under our leadership, will begin with the dismantling of that which burdens us and those who are incapable of adapting. We are already paying the price for the mistakes of previous generations. Now it’s up to us to take those lessons and apply them moving forward for the system to improve. We must accept the challenges we are faced with and choose to lead with solutions, otherwise our generation will become part of the problem as time goes on.

Millennials have skin in the game now. Born between 1980 and 2000, the oldest Millennials are in their late-thirties. We are well-established in our careers, and hold leadership, senior, and middle management positions. Many of us have families and homes. Millennials want to create positive change now, to serve as both our legacy and as the foundation of the futures of our children and beyond, and we are enabled to create this change quickly because of the advantages digital communication offers. We see how many of our peers are still unemployed or underemployed in what should be the most prosperous societies. We see the choices and opportunities, or lack thereof, available to us. We see how our taxes are being managed or mismanaged. We see how decisions are made, successful or ineffectual, and whether these strengthen or weaken our fundamental democratic and human rights. And we’ve reached the conclusion, particularly after watching our Baby Boomer parents struggle within the structures the eldest in their own generation created and beyond, that we will not live the same way.

 

Libertarians with a Social Conscience

Millennials differ from previous generations of young people in that we’ve grown up alongside the birth and development of digital technology; elder Millennials still remember dial-up internet and life before cell phones. We are globally-minded because that’s the experience and understanding of life we grew up with. Access to information does not mean Millennial values and attitudes are in a constant state of flux. All the information available to us provides greater understanding of the potential in the interconnectedness and complexity across our planet.

The inherent globalization in digital technology instilled in us the expectation of freedom – the right to search and learn, to travel and live elsewhere, to take risks and try unique life paths, and especially, freedom from fear and the abuse of the elites, which has developed into a strong desire to take on leadership roles that matter.

While Millennials are challenging the traditional workplace, consumer marketing, and fascinated by visionaries like Elon Musk, this disruption and innovation vision for the future is complemented with our love for old records and real books because we value the tangible and authentic. We strive for a tailored, customizable lifestyle and ignore unattainable hype, which is why traditional marketing and advertising no longer work.

With the Internet and spread of information worldwide, Millennials have unlimited access to information to inform our ideas on how to improve the state of the world. We don’t need government and media commentators telling us the right way to do anything. We look at these talking heads and ask ourselves, if they had known the answers all along as they claim to know them now, wouldn’t our societies’ problems be far fewer or on a credible path to resolution? Hypocrisy has been the most potent death blow to the credibility of institutions, from the Millennial perspective.

Millennials believe government has the potential to create a lot of good and positive impact on society yet is failing to do so because of the people running the show. Neither do we necessarily think government has a lot, or should have a lot, of influence in society. We care deeply about freedom of choice, whether we choose to exercise those choices personally or not. To put it simplistically, Millennials are libertarians with a social conscience. Live, and let live, and do what you can to improve the lives of others, or at the very least not cause harm.

Likewise, Millennials believe in the positive contribution potential business has for society, but we still prioritize our personal values – we believe organizational and personal values should be shared. We believe private business should be more influential in triggering economic growth than government, but that influence should be spread out, not monopolized. Despite what may be assumed, we rate non-governmental organizations and charities at the bottom of the list in terms of institutions that have influence and the potential to create positive change in society. 

Changing the Rules

These descriptions of Millennials are not entirely unique to Millennials – they describe human beings of all generations or of a particular mindset at a certain time of life. Much of what Millennials are facing right now are characteristic of a phase of life. What is unique, however, is the present context within which Millennials have come of age, and this context is the lens through which Millennials view both the past and the future and see why we are on the precipice of significant change.

For decades, the Baby Boomer generation created and reinforced certain cultural norms across society to their benefit. Evolution is supposed to take place but in democratic politics and government there has been minimal, if any, evolution. This is not to say revolutionary overhaul or lack of respect for tempered steps forward, but in many ways a devolution is taking place. In comfortable conditions growth and innovation stagnate, and robust and responsive leadership isn’t a priority when the whole system is based upon multi-level self-reinforcement of people used to getting their way. Millennials can’t afford to live this way, incredibly frustrated and disempowered to retain and maintain control over our own lives, unable to protect and defend ourselves from those who abuse our systems and institutions for their own benefit.

We have record levels of consumer (and public) debt and many are either unemployed or underemployed, unable to financially dig ourselves out and get ahead.

We can’t afford home ownership.

Our taxpayer funded public healthcare systems still require us to pay out of pocket for necessities like prescriptions, dental, or hospital care.

Increasingly unaffordable home prices, utilities, and property taxes (and sizes and lots that are older and smaller) mean we struggle to create stability, feel the accomplishment of ownership, and build equity for our future.

New parents are forced to choose between having income to provide the basics and being present to raise and care for families as healthy, happy humans for a healthy, happy society. Or we opt out of parenthood altogether.

Public education systems are failing to teach children basic math and literacy, let alone preparing them to become competitive adults in an evolving workforce, all while teacher unions demand lesser workloads and more pay and benefits, and administrators receive, in some cases, higher salaries than the national political leaders of our countries.

The cost of a parent or grandparent living in a retirement and long-term care home is equal to an indulgent mortgage.

We have no pension or old age security to fall back on.

Millennials want to make the world a better place. The inherent globalization in digital technology instilled in us the expectation of freedom – the right to search and learn, to travel and live elsewhere, to take risks and try unique life paths, and especially, freedom from fear and the abuse of the elites, which has developed into a strong desire to take on leadership roles that matter.

How MiFID II Regulation Impacts Millennial Employment

MiFID II, the EU’s continued response to the 2008 financial crisis, came into force just over a year ago and took on a number of regulatory avenues in the financial markets. The regulation, introduced January 2018, is meant to create further transparency for investors and customers. One particular area of focus is the impact on research costs.

Prior to MiFID II, an investment firm would be able to charge investors for research costs by lumping it under their commission or brokerage fees.[i] With MiFID II, “research costs” are to be recognized separately from this previous form. From now on, research costs are either recognized as an isolated revenue stream, or absorbed by the investment firm as an additional cost. [ii]

Although this affects Europe specifically, the intersectionality of global markets means that the new regulation for research costs will have an impact abroad as well. Plainly, non-EU firms that distribute research to European clients will be held accountable to regulation outlined by MiFID II as well.

The influence of these guidelines are yet to be fully understood, the response that investment firms will employ when faced with the regulation; is wedged between deciding whether or not to charge customers for research. Sustaining this activity could enable a new set of opportunities for firms to specialize in research, and potentially create an industry predicated on the different faucets of research opportunities.[iii]

Conversely, while this shift may represent growth for some, another potential outcome lies in the possibility of substantial cuts to research teams. Investment banks have already begun to cut back on research department resourcing to cut excess costs.[iv] The CFA institute- a global association of investment professionals- conducted a survey of its European members and found that 53% expect the firm to pay for research.[v]

Since research costs are to be accounted for separately, it also sheds light on a growing need for the definition between what constitutes research costs, and what would be considered “other expenses”.[vi] Items that might be labelled “ideas and commentary” and not constitute as a true “recommendation for action” could fall under the spectrum of marketing costs, instead of revenue-generating research costs.[vii] This change in the cost allocation impacts the number of analysts needed in teams, and resultantly teams will be looking to slim down to retain only a certain number of staff. The research job pool has already seen sizeable cuts with the number of analysts at the 12 biggest banks/investment banks having fallen by over 600 in the last 4 years.[viii] The CFA Institute recently noted “any changes in where research is sourced from may have implications for where analysts are employed, as well as for the aggregate number of analysts employed.”[ix]

Millennials can expect some impact; analyst roles in financial institutions are largely filled by entry-level positions, typically comprised of fresh graduates looking to establish their careers. This is not to say that Millennials will necessarily see major job cuts, but it is worth pondering whom, if not those who are just getting their foot in the door, will be most affected by this new regulation.


[i] Bloomberg (September 19, 2016) MFID II set to disrupt investment research worldwide

[ii] Ibid Bloomberg

[iii] Quinlan & Associates (August 2016) Research in an unbundled world

[iv] Financial Times (February 7th 2017) Final call for the research analyst?

[v] CFA Institute (2017) MIFID II: A new paradigm for investment research

[vi] PricewaterhouseCoopers (September 2016) The future of research

[vii] Ibid PricewaterhouseCoopers

[viii] Ibid Financial Times

[ix] Ibid CFA Institute


About the Author

Savraj Syan is a young professional with a background in finance and accounting, who has a penchant for politics and public policy.

Generation Identity: Millennials Fighting for the Future

There’s a movement taking place across Europe, of thousands of Millennials in each nation united under a banner called Generation Identity. In response to the cultural and economic crisis created by mass immigration, feeling alienated and as minorities in their homelands, these Millennials define themselves specifically as ethno-pluralist, not nationalist. They are not against immigrants or foreigners, only the government-sponsored mass migration movement and its disastrous, unintended consequences. Even so, the mainstream news media have predictably called supporters of Generation Identity racists and xenophobes. Yet this is a generation that doesn’t trust, give credence, or need the supportive voice of these so-called journalists, as the movement continues to grow rapidly. Accusations of extremism are so over-used in society today, the terms are meaningless to a generation sick of being told to conform to ideological groupthink.

Until now, the silent majority in Europe who are against mass immigration and Islamization of their societies have had no platform or voice for their concerns, and those who do speak up are routinely silenced and their reputations destroyed. Hundreds of thousands have viewed Generation Identity’s YouTube videos despite algorithms searching for and deleting their content across the internet, and Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have suspended their accounts and pages without any justification. The Identitarians have responded with legal challenges to this censorship, and already won court cases against those seeking to deplatform their members. In the face of censorship by payment gateways such as Paypal and Mastercard, Generation Identity accepts donations in the form of blockchain cryptocurrency.

Up to 50 percent of Millennials in some European countries are unemployed despite being university educated and are without future career prospects. Social safety net services are being redirected from native citizens in need to migrants, even those who have been ordered for deportation. Attacks on women, seniors, gays, and Jews have dramatically risen, and police and emergency services avoid no-go zones. On these and on every other issue, politicians from every party refuse to listen to their nation’s citizens. Now, the largest generation in history is fighting back.

 

Who Are Generation Identity?

The pan-European Identitarian movement is inspired by Génération Identitaire, which began in France in 2012 by occupying the roof of a nearly completed mosque in the city of Poitiers. This was highly symbolic because this town is near where Charles Martel repelled a Muslim invasion in the year 732 A.D. during the Battle of Tours, thus saving France and Europe from an Islamic domination. In 2016, Génération Identitaire installed barricades on Calais city’s bridges to prevent Muslim migrants from entering the town and harassing its inhabitants.

Generation Identity, which is also called the Identitarian Movement, is now a Europe-wide patriotic youth movement that promotes the values of homeland, freedom, and tradition through peaceful activism, political education, and community and cultural activities. They aim to preserve the cultural heritage that has characterized European countries and the continent over many thousands of years and see it as their mission to argue for a peaceful and secure future within Europe, and value the path forged by the ethno-cultural tradition of their European ancestors.

They believe the crucial questions of the twenty-first century will be asked in the field of identity politics and acknowledge that the current demographic situation is unfavourable for the indigenous European population. These Millennials foresee continued increase in ethnic, cultural, and religious conflicts unless there is a political rethink. They are unaffiliated with any political party, who have all failed their citizens on the issue of immigration despite rhetoric for decades claiming they would tackle the issue in alignment with public opinion, yet in practice allowed government policy to fester.

As a non-violent youth movement that highlights the need for open and honest public debate about immigration policies, identity, and the future of their nations and of Europe, their three core aims are to stop the Islamisation of Europe, oppose globalisation, and stop and reverse the Great Replacement of ethnic Europeans.

The affirmation of their own identity is a self-evident, basic consensus which does not require any party programs. Politically, they do not fit into the pre-fabricated left-right political spectrum and believe patriotism and love of native country are central societal values that do not need to be forced into party political templates.

Generation Identity’s opponents include far-right and far-left activists who attempt to neutralize their effectiveness by infiltrating and discrediting their movement, including through violence, yet Generation Identity has done a remarkable job of identifying and expelling these individuals and their networks. Generation Identity is explicit that they do not provide a platform for any national-socialist or fascist groups or views, nor involve themselves with conflicts outside of Europe.

Every winter Generation Identity supporters organize to provide food, clothing, and humanity to those abandoned by the State’s social welfare system that has become the benefits program for migrants.

 

Authentic Change

Generation Identity believes political change is not only possible in parliament and in party politics, but also in cultural activities, public debates, the media, and on the streets. Therefore, they act in a kind of ‘pre-political space’ which determines discourse and thus serves as the basis for direct and concrete political decisions. The Identitarians strive for a normal, patriotic state of affairs and aim to shape public debate and influence public opinion in a peaceful and democratic way to thus serve as an impetus for the electoral decisions, political awareness, and cultural activity of Europeans.

The collective guilt of earlier generations of Europeans from the consequences of the First and Second World Wars do not burden the shoulders of these Millennials. Fed up with political correctness and being sidelined by the Establishment Elites, Generation Identity are fighting a battle for ideas, and for what is acceptable to think and say. They do not just aim to influence public discourse with their activism, but also seek to bring the most motivated and creative people into their ranks through spectacular action; a silent, passive life for these activists is out of the question.

In every western nation, Millennials are consistently criticized as a generation that is self-interested and unwilling to participate in creating the future, yet the Identitarians go one crucial step further than many protest movements by developing and outlining their demands with concrete solutions. Less preoccupied with selfies, Generation Identity believes materialistic values provide too little meaning and understand the need to create real communities based on real values. Generation Identity addresses the need for meaning by creating local community touchpoints and cultural connections for young native Europeans.

Experts in the Politics of Nonviolence, an actionable theory established by Dr. Gene Sharp that has instructed generations of successful political youth movements, Generation Identity disseminates their ideas and engages in street activism, delivers serious analysis and solutions to current social and political developments, and supports young people in the application of their talents.

Their Battle Cry

Generation Identity’s symbol is the lambda, which was used by the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae in 480BC. Led by King Leonidas of Sparta, the Greek forces were vastly outnumbered, over 21 to 1 by a massive Persian army. The Greeks held off the Persians for seven days before their rear-guard was annihilated in one of history’s most famous last stands. After the second day, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a small path that led behind the Greek lines. Leonidas, aware that his force was being outflanked, dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and remained to guard their retreat with 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, and 400 Thebans, fighting to the death.

Both ancient and modern writers have used the Battle of Thermopylae as an example of the power of a patriotic army defending its native soil. The lambda circle can also be seen as a shield. The top of the arrow stands for the metapolitical centre Generation Identity intends to conquer, with the Identitarian movement as the spearhead.

Generation Identity’s Demands

Supporters say by loving and respecting our own identities, we can understand how and why others love theirs. Generation Identity seeks to reverse the European population replacement by mass immigration, a direct cause of decades of government policy since the middle of the twentieth century, and they have a plan. European political leaders have admitted their culturally neutral policy of multiculturalism, dependent on the assumption of assimilation and integration, has failed. States need a strong culture for the state to exist and remigration is required.

Between 700,000 and 800,000 migrants in Austria and about 900,000 migrants in Germany alone leave each year, yet this is still far less than the number coming in, which has totaled over 15 million in the last decade. This demographic dynamic is created by incentives; by inversing the push-pull factors that incentivize mass immigration, such as freezing social spending, cutting back the welfare state, and activating policies of de-islamization, European countries can change tendencies where migrants choose to leave. Reverting the Great Replacement in this manner can be achieved without violence or changing basic laws, simply by abiding by the constitution, which European politicians should have been doing all along and intentionally failed to do.

Preservation of Ethno-Cultural Identity

“We demand a long-overdue open debate on the question of our identity in the 21st century. The established range of positions is limiting this question solely to the utopia of a unified one world ideology. We, on the other hand, insist on a world of plurality, peoples and cultures. We believe in true diversity in which all peoples have a right to preserve and promote their group identity in their homelands.

“As it stands, the establishment are working tirelessly to deny this to our peoples. We want to preserve our peoples’ ethnocultural identity: an identity that is anchored in common consensus and viewed as a fundamental right in our society.”

Defence of Defining Values

“We believe that both love of one’s own country and genuine freedom of speech are essential values for our societies. For many years the political ‘left’ has dominated media and culture, often stifling views counter to their own. Now is the time for an Identitarian counter-voice to enter the stage.

“Love of one’s own country is something completely healthy and natural. It is simply a normal part of human nature. We want everyone to be able to take pride in their own culture and traditions without having to experience suppression and marginalisation.”

Remigration

“We call for the humane repatriation of anyone who has entered our countries illegally. Concerning legal immigration, The Great Replacement in Europe requires us to work towards reversing migration flows. This reversal will serve the preservation of peace, security and stability in all European countries.”

International Aid on the Ground

“We desire a world where every human feels secure in his or her homeland. We, therefore, strongly support regional development work for countries shaped by war and poverty, helping people to remain in and develop their own homelands. This is encapsulated in our statement: ‘immigration destroys Europe, emigration destroys Africa’. “

Secure Borders

“We need effective measures from our governments to regain security and control over our state territories. Our borders must be categorically defended against mass migration and The Great Replacement. Securing our borders will establish far more security and stability in our countries.”

 

Defend Europe Missions

During the summer of 2017, Generation Identity led the Defend Europe mission in the Mediterranean. The goal was to prevent the boats of pro-illegal migrant associations from working in complete freedom and to denounce the practices of these NGOs, which in reality is human trafficking. This mission made it possible to draw attention to the situation in the Mediterranean and forced politicians to position themselves on the topic. Today, the activities of these associations are closely monitored.

In April 2018, Generation Identity started the Defend Europe Alps mission. This operation took place in three phases. First, they closed the border to prevent illegal immigrants from entering France. Next, they deployed in mobile surveillance teams to monitor a larger area. Finally, they conducted investigations in order to understand where the illegal immigrants were getting through, identify who was smuggling them in, and how this was all organised in order to denounce them. Thanks to this operation, Generation Identity proved to the public authorities that with political will it is possible to regain control of Europe’s borders. As a result, the government decided to increase the number of police officers at this crossing point.

 

Countering the Critics

What does the term 'Great Replacement' mean and who is responsible for it?

The Great Replacement describes the process by which the indigenous European population is replaced by non-European migrants. We are facing a demographic crisis across Europe where our peoples are becoming a minority in their own countries. Declining birth rates, mass immigration and the sharp increase in Islamic parallel societies will lead to the almost complete destruction of European societies within a matter of decades if no countermeasures are taken.

Our multiculturalist self-abolition ideology, which dominates a large part of our societies’ political debate, is further accelerating this process and leading to a fatal blindness among politicians and the media to future consequences if the current policies of open borders continue. Experts predict a migration wave of up to one billion people from Africa and Asia to Europe over the coming decades.

We can predict quite precisely that a continuation of current immigration policies and the multicultural agenda will lead to many European peoples becoming a minority in their own countries. In many urban areas, we can already observe the occupation of areas by Islamic parallel societies and other non-European communities.

Ethnic, religious and cultural tensions have already been established in our societies. It is therefore of vital importance that we Brits, Irish and Europeans, reconquer the cultural vacuum resulting from this and resolve the demographic crisis in our countries through peaceful means.

 

What does the term 'Reconquista' mean?

The term Reconquista (“reconquest”) is based on the historical event of the Visigothic kingdoms successors’ gradually recapturing the Iberian Peninsula, which had been held by Muslim conquerors. Today, while we may not be facing an immediate military confrontation, the threat is one of self-destruction through a multicultural zeitgeist. Our fight is therefore a war of words, ideas and politics.

We, Generation Identity, want to reconquer the social discourse, which have been dominated by a left-wing hegemony. We are a loud patriotic voice that shows its face, one that is creating new pathways for the values of tradition and national pride. Love for our own and an awareness of our ethno-cultural identity are matters we should take for granted and of which we should not feel ashamed. We want patriotism to become an important value for society.

We also believe in true freedom of expression so that these important issues will have a place in the public discourse. These are our demands and for this cause we go on the streets every day to form a phalanx for the Reconquista.

 

Are you against foreigners?

Not at all. Our criticism and political actions are not directed against immigrants and refugees as individuals or groups. The pull factors of the migration movements to Europe are largely caused by the political and social elites’ fatal incentive policies, as they, directly or indirectly, push the ideologically-driven and fraudulent multicultural experiment.

Our protest is therefore directed at the centres of decision-making and influence that continue to push this ‘asylum’ insanity ever further though misleading and false politics. The phenomena of mass immigration and Islamization are tendencies of a systemic development observed throughout Europe for a number of years. Our focus is primarily directed towards this ideological inclination for self-abolition.

We do not lapse into simplistic protest against immigrants themselves. For us, alongside criticizing current politics, it is also important to rebuild a self-confident relationship with our own ethno-cultural identity and to emphasize our ‘own’ without falling into xenophobic reflexes. 

What do you mean by 'Identity'?

Human identity is formed through a complex network of historical, biographical, cultural, religious and social associations. Throughout the stages of our personal socialisation, distinctive features of our identity emerge. There is always an interactive relationship between the individual and collective identity. The ethno-cultural aspect is a collective feature of our identity which forms the core of Identitarian political activity and is what we aim to preserve. We believe that every people on Earth is distinguished by its particular diversity and that each brings some unique way of life, values, culture, origin, religion and social practices.

All peoples have the right to preserve and defend the characteristics and features of its ethno- cultural identity. And it is this preservation that we demand for our own regional, national and European identity. In the 21st century, with the pressure of mass immigration and Islamization, the question of identity has become a polarizing theme, on which we, as Generation Identity, take a strong stance.

We stress that identity is characterised by uniqueness on the one hand and by diversity and distinctness on the other one. The perception of a ‘we’ inevitably comprises the perception of the ‘other’. Only those who hold an honest identity for themselves and their own can, at the same time, openly acknowledge the diversity of the others. This position is a clear rejection of racism and chauvinism, since we want to preserve the identity of each and every people and culture, and we reject an uprooting or depreciation of a particular ethno-cultural community. We want to preserve the identity of our own people in its distinctiveness along with all the other peoples of the world.

The ethnic and the cultural aspects of our identity are of equal value to us. We reject an over- emphasis of any one particular aspect of identity.

Ethno-cultural identity has always developed as a holistic relationship and has left its basic marks throughout history with peoples perpetuating themselves. As Identitarians, we want our European identity to have the right to exist in one-hundred years’ time and beyond.

Identity unfolds at different levels: on the regional level it is characterized by a direct attachment to one’s own city, village and region. Dialects, customs and regional history shape this identity. At the next level is national identity, which is characterized by its direct tie to a people or a state, representing a comprehensive identification framework, characterized by social, linguistic and cultural rules. As Generation Identity, we reject dogmatising national identity. We believe the national and regional levels complement each other. Such aspects of identity, taken together, create a common framework that builds upon and complements one another.                                                                                                                                       

Finally, there is the identity of civilisation that for us is constituted in the European identity. Through origin, history and culture all Europeans share both a common heritage and a common destiny, the emphasis and awareness of which is now all the more necessary as the current developments affect our continent as a whole. The history of Europe has always been shaped by cultural exchange and cooperation.

 

How do you want to implement your aims?

We instill our messages in the public space through spectacular campaigns in order to break through the spiral of political and media silence.

For far too long the left-liberal establishment has claimed authority for itself to interpret reality for the public. As patriotic youth we are confident and confront those decision makers and elites with their failures who have had our generation growing up with the grand delusion of a multicultural utopia. We break through their deceptive consensus and challenge them in their own comfort zones.

There is now a patriotic antithesis in the UK and Europe. We take to the stages that convey our agenda on the widest possible level.

At the same time, we are creating alternative educational programs that give young people practical tools of application in the area of political activism and campaign management, enabling them to effectively develop their talents.

Are your goals not racist OR extremist?

Not in the least. To work for a patriotic and free homeland is the foundation of every cohesive human society. Identity is the defining factor creating social support as well as a cultural and moral orientation for people within their own environment. A nation-state is characterized by spatial, temporal and historical factors and this forms the basic consensus in any serious debate on national and international law, history, politics and social sciences.

However, the fact that standing for the preservation of ethnocultural identity is today classified by established politicians as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, demonstrates that our political and social decision-makers do not consider it necessary to develop a self-confident attitude towards their own identity. They try to ostracise and vilify those who criticise the unbridled mass immigration or those who demand a sovereign border policy and the proper enforcement of asylum laws. As Generation Identity we hold the imperative of non-violence in all our actions and political work. We rely on a peaceful and creative protest that succeeds without threats or intimidation.

Our actions always focus on the love of our own home regions, countries and Europe and emphasize this right to home, culture, origin and rootedness also for the stranger, who we approach with respect and recognition according to our principles of ethnic pluralism. Our political actions are based solely on the preservation and historical continuation of a common ethno-cultural identity and millennials-old heritage for the whole of Europe.

In most other countries such a commitment to this basic social foundation is considered the minimal societal and political consensus. Therefore, we merely demand the same patriotic normality for Ireland, the UK and the rest of Europe, which has nothing to do with extremism or racism.

What goals and demands do Generation Identity seek?

As a non-party political movement, our central political operation field lies in raising awareness of our positions and their link to our ethno-cultural identity. Thus, we are influencing the existing political discourse, which currently denies, discredits, and in some cases even criminalizes the natural affirmation of what is one’s own.

We call for an open debate about the meaning of our own ethno-cultural identity in the 21st century that is free of any ideological and universalistic bias.

Aside from that, we also follow real political developments with a critical view – the unrestrained mass migration, the loss of our own territorial integrity by the opening of the state borders, the resulting loss of internal security, and the dominant spread of Islamic parallel societies – for which we aim to raise awareness through activism, campaigns and educational work.

We see ourselves as agents for shaping public opinion and we counterpose the general left-leaning trend in our societies with a patriotic alternative.

Chapters by Country

Austria

Czech Republic

Denmark

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Poland

Serbia

Slovenia

Switzerland

United Kingdom and Ireland

Demosisto, Hong Kong’s democracy movement

Hong Kong was established as a British colony and existed under British rule from 1841 to 1997. In 1997, Hong Kong was returned to China under a transfer of sovereignty, with its freedoms guaranteed for 50 years.

A new political party started by Millennials, called Demosisto, campaigns for the self-determination of Hong Kong, pledging to hold a referendum in 10 years to let the people decide their own fate beyond 2047, when the principle of “one country, two systems”, from the transfer of sovereignty agreement, expires.

 

The Umbrella Revolution

The political, pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution was a series of peaceful, sit-in street protests by students and young professionals in Hong Kong between September and December 2014. Umbrellas became the symbol of the protest, as protestors used them to shield themselves from tear gas. Supporters of the Umbrella Revolution fear civil liberties are disappearing at a rapid pace by the Beijing-backed Hong Kong government in advance of 2047.

The Umbrella Revolution protests ignited out of the NPCSC's (National People’s Congress Standing Committee) decision against electoral reform for the 2017 Hong Kong Executive election. Protestors demanded Beijing allow fully free elections of future leaders, retraction of the NPCSC’s decision, universal suffrage, abolition of functional constituencies of Legislative Council of Hong Kong, and the resignation of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

As leaders of the Umbrella Revolution, Joshua Wong and Nathan Law were among those who founded Demosisto. Among the fractured opposition movement, nine newcomers were successfully elected in 2016 legislative elections. Law was elected the city's youngest ever lawmaker, but he was one of several disqualified from office by Hong Kong courts after Beijing enacted a rarely-used power to "reinterpret" the city's constitution, putting more stringent requirements on how legislators took their oaths of office. Law’s oath was determined to be “insincere”.

Wong was too young to run in the 2016 elections.

 

Fight for Justice

Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow, were found guilty of unlawful assembly for the Umbrella Revolution protests and ultimately sentenced to time in prison. In November 2017, Wong and Law were released on bail pending appeals against their jail terms; Chow did not apply for bail. If they lose their appeals, Wong and Law could be sent back to serve the remainder of their sentences, six months and eight months, respectively.

Wong is now seeking a High Court ruling that a ban on anyone who has been jailed for more than three months from running for elected office for five years is unconstitutional. The rule ruins the political aspirations of Wong and another imprisoned Demosisto activist, Ivan Lam.

 

Looking Ahead

Wong, who is featured in a new Netflix documentary about himself and their democracy movement, acknowledges that continuing the fight is likely to become increasingly difficult as Chinese leader Xi Jinping emphasises zero tolerance of any challenges to Beijing’s sovereignty, “In the future — from elections to social movements — I believe Hong Kong people will advance and retreat with us,” he says. “It’s more dangerous and risky to fight for democracy in Hong Kong. But I think as the suppression intensifies, our resistance will be stronger.”