The Theory of Language as The Basis of Identity
by The Fascifist
Introduction
This paper seeks to answer the question, "What is Identity?" The main thesis of this paper is that identity is the recognition of an abstracted object imbued with meaning and distinguished by properties both descriptive and normative. Identity is the formative consequence of language. Language is the medium by which ideas are socially constructed, communicated, maintained, and propagated further by a social group. Therefore, this paper seeks to show that language is the basis of identity. This paper also seeks to explore how language creates and shapes political development over time. The thesis of this paper proclaims that when it comes to understanding the primary historical subject of political organization in human affairs, it is language that is the primary and fundamental subject of politics rather than other concepts such as the individual, the collective, race, class, caste, state, etc. This is not to say that these other concepts don't shape, refine, and further solidify the imminent manifestations of political organizations over the course of time, but rather that all other subjects are derivative and downstream from language, which is the primary and fundamental substrate of identity. Ultimately, identity is in a constant state of flux depending on the state of language as a medium of conception and communication between minds through consciousness.
The Universe Is Made of Mind: Consciousness As The Fundamental Substance
The human being is limited to his senses. His reality is the product of his subjective perceptions made consciously and subconsciously coherent through the act of thinking. He has no access to noumenon (that is - the thing in of itself, outside of his ability to infer its existence through abstraction). But even here, he is bound to the mental processes of his mind and can not escape the logical necessity of projecting an idea of noumenon through the mind rather than accessing noumenon itself independently of mind. Consequently, one is forced to recognize the mind as primary and fundamental. This is to say that consciousness is the substance of the universe, which is a mental construct of the mind. It is through the mind of man that “human reality” is created, and it is man’s consciousness that realizes nature into being. One should understand “nature” as “all that man is capable of understanding” and consequently “supernature” as “all that is beyond man’s capability of understanding”. Given the strict subjective idealist definitions of these terms, one can coherently justify that human reality is a product of the mental process of “realization” conducted by man’s act of thinking as a pure act of consciousness. This is by no means to suggest that there are no realities beyond “human reality” subject to other beings, or even the Supreme Being that man man refers to as “God”, but rather, it is to focus on man, and his subjective reality as the a priori starting point of all philosophical investigations.
Because this paper is written by and for human beings, it is from the starting point of the mind of man that the least epistemological assumptions and abstractions have to be made when engaging in philosophical investigations about the nature of all things. Unfortunately, one is always forced to make at least one axiomatic assumption when engaging in philosophy. With that being the case, one is also faced with building upon an axiom that may be either an infinite regression fallacy or a circular reasoning fallacy. René Descartes’s famous philosophical axiom “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am” is an example of this. This paper, however, will utilize George Berkeley’s axiomatic assumption “Esse is percipi” or “to be is to be perceived” in order to present to the reader the claims and arguments in support of the thesis of this paper.
Berkeley’s radical ontological and cosmological immaterialism posits that all beings exist by virtue of being perceived by other beings either through active perception or passive perception. An example of an active perception of being can be found through the examples of dreaming, imagining or recalling memories of the past. An example of passive perception of being can be found through the examples of interacting and participating in the colloquially understood “day to day” existence of humanity. The difference between the two can be summed up through the recognition that the latter is more rigid and contains certain inferable rules that restrict man from manifesting his will in a manner that may not apply in the former which appears to be freer and less rigid. Furthermore, the latter appears to be more consistent as far as human experience is concerned. This is to say that the “day to day” existence of humanity is experienced through a far more anchored consciousness that demands a greater degree of critical thought and analysis of being. Consequently, this warrants a far more challenging conformity of trend-based mental phenomena to the human mind. One may understand this as the so-called “laws of nature”.
Logically, Berkeley’s axiom necessitates a “supreme perceiver” who realizes all things into being. Berkeley proposes that it is the Christian God who fulfills this role in his philosophical framework. Berkeley’s “to be is to be perceived” finds its cosmological genesis in the Christian God’s utterance of “ego sum qui sum” or “I am that I am”. Since the Christian God is triune, consisting of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit; all interdependent and co-existing eternally within the Godhead and of one divine mind realizing ultimate reality into being, Berkeley’s philosophical axiom is justified theologically in that the Godhead had always perceived itself and shall always continue to perceive itself with neither beginning nor end. Of course this also distinguishes the uncreated supreme being from all created beings including the human being. In the subjective idealist philosophical framework, the laws of identity are set into motion through the perpetual propagation and development of consciousness out of the process of realization via the act of thinking.
Language as The Fundamental Prerequisite to Identity
The human mind perceives through the senses a meaningless chaos. Out of this chaos, the human mind abstracts a particular object into an analytical focus attempting to realize and ascribe meaning to the object of study. The abstracted object is contrasted against the backdrop of that which it is not. This distinction can be understood as “this vs that” where objects are ordered analytically in accordance with various mentally constructed criterias. After analyzing and imbuing the particular object of study with meaning, the mind creates an identity for the perceived object in question. It is out of this process that identity is constructed as a way to categorize the object of study into a grander social structure that one can understand as “the world” or “the universe”. This process can be roughly understood through the famous history presented in Christian sacred tradition when God called Adam to name all the creatures in the garden of Eden. Adam utilized the above mentioned process to create identities based on subjective criterias of distinctions within his mind.
The mental construction of identity, however, would not be socialized without language. For it is language that allows the human mind to formulate and communicate ideas further from one mind to another. It is only through the medium of language that identity can be emancipated from an isolated mental construct to an accessible social construct. Only through the common consciousness of language can separated minds begin to harmonize into a communicative understanding. It is only through this communicative understanding between minds that a “shared reality” begins to manifest and develop within the consciousness of the organic beings that partake in it. It is for this reason that the medium of language is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to any socially meaningful identity within any “shared reality” between human minds. Without language to socialize minds into a common consciousness, identities would not be communicable distinctions. Relating back to the story of the garden of Eden, Adam could only communicate these ideas to his wife Eve through the use of language. It was only through the consciousness of a common language that these identities created by Adam took on a social character. It was only because of language that Eve was able to harmonize her subjective reality with Adam’s subjective reality thereby realizing a “shared reality” common to them both.
Language, Social Identity, and Shared Reality
Because language is the medium through which identities are socialized and communicated between minds in order to realize a shared reality into being, it is also language that can be credited with creating the shared subjective reality of a social group of human beings harmonized in a common consciousness. As language develops and changes, so too do social identities that encompass the social structures of a shared reality within any given social group of humanity. One can even go as far as to conclude that language is capable of changing realities themselves or alternatively that changes in language can result in changes of social identities and thus perceptions of being thereby ultimately constituting changes in shared subjective realities.
Consider the example of particular terms and their diverse interpretations of meaning across time and space. The term “liberty” could imply very different things to one person in contrast to another. There was once a time in which the term “gay” was simply a synonym for “joyful” or “happy” and yet one finds social groups today who have imbued a drastically different meaning to the term thereby opening the doors to new shared realities that seek to negate and replace the older ones within the consciousness of the masses of human beings. In order to understand how this process works, one should look towards the field of study that has in modern times been coined as “Critical Theory”. Critical Theory categorizes the processes that create, maintain and destroy mental social structures into three categories:
Consciousness Deconstruction: This is used to undermine and destroy already standing social constructs within the consciousness of a social group of human beings. The purpose of consciousness deconstruction is to negate older social constructs in favor of newer ones. The newer ones are contradictory to the older ones and consequently produce a radically different subjective reality that is hostile to the one that it seeks to replace within the consciousness of a social group.
Consciousness Maintenance: This is used to maintain, reinforce and improve upon already standing social constructs within the consciousness of a social group of human beings. The purpose of consciousness maintenence is to pacify and negate alternative social constructs that are deemed hostile to the already standing social constructs.
Consciousness Construction: This is used to create and edify new social constructs within the consciousness of a social group of human beings. The purpose of consciousness construction is to create new social constructs that shall realize into being a new subjective reality within the consciousness of a social group.
Language as The Central Subject of all Political Development in Human History
Political organization and development both shapes and is shaped by the consciousness of a social group over time. The central subject of all politics, therefore, is language. It is out of the dialectical development of language that abstract notions such as the individual, the collective, the race, the class, the caste, the people, the folk and the state are even made possible in the first place. Without language, every abstract concept would be inaccessible to the collective consciousness of a social group. A social group requires language as the fundamental medium in and through which it operates and develops its politics over time. Human civilization is only made possible through a common language that emancipates every member of a social group to participate in society. Since religion, culture and tradition are all dependent on common understanding, it is only language that socializes humanity so that it may gain the understanding necessary to create and maintain the operations of religion, culture and tradition. All human organization is constructed in and through the medium of language and this process begins as early as the day of human infancy.
Language as Both a Medium and a Substance
From the moment that children are born, parents strive to develop modes of communication with their children. As children grow older, they learn to distinguish perceived objects by imbuing them with meaning. The identities of the objects are often communicated to the children by their parents via repetitive pattern recognition exercises. In time, children learn to identify objects not only in a descriptive sense, but also in a prescriptive and finally normative sense. By the time children are old enough to develop an interest in the politics of human affairs, they have already developed a particular consciousness through the medium of language that they were instructed in by their parents and teachers. Up to this point, language has been described as a medium, however, language is not only the medium used to indoctrinate children, but it is also the substance of any possible doctrine that can be created and propagated further. Changes in language can result in changes in the interpretation of a particular doctrine and ultimately changes in a particular doctrine overall. Consider again the notions of “liberty” and “rights” as political concepts in human history. The Imperial Roman concept of “libertas” had a very specific meaning that was contextual and commonly understood by the citizens of Rome. Liberty in this context of the Roman “Civitas” was understood as a conditional privilege that was earned and only granted so long as certain duties and obligations were perpetually being fulfilled by the citizenry. Rights and liberties were understood within the context of duty-bound honor and selfless devotion. The introduction of the Christian religion in Rome brought about a theological addition to this concept which changed not only the linguistic meanings of the term, but even the social implications of the term. In the medieval ages, liberty was understood theologically as the “freedom from sin”. Medieval scholastics developed an understanding of liberty which taught the European rulers to seek a political organization of society that shielded man from the temptations of excess. The concept of “right” during this time was anchored to the authorities who governed over the affairs of subjects and faithful alike rather than those being governed by them. It was around the time of the European renaissance that the religion of Humanism began to spread within the consciousness of the influential circles of society.
The development of language during this time eventually yielded the so-called “Enlightenment” in the 18th century. As the liberal humanist Zeitgeist spread within the consciousness of power hungry aristocrats that were fed up with the governing authorities of the old social order, their language too began to manifest radically different conceptions of reality. Whereas the Protestant reformers two centuries earlier used the terms liberty and rights strictly in an ecclesiastical manner in order to refute the disagreeable aspects of Papal Rome, the liberal humanist revolutionaries of the 17th century used the terms in a far more radical fashion. Their conceptions of these terms laid the foundations for today’s ever evolving interpretations of “Human Rights” which have today arguably taken a character of inalienable entitlement focused on the passions and desires of the individual. Tracing the dialectical and developmental changes of the exact same linguistic terms over time, one may see exactly how language not only serves as a medium of expressing identity, but also as a substance of creating identity.
One may now understand how the “gay man” in the 1700’s may have been perceived as person who likely had a good wife, obedient children and a sense of honor and duty while the “gay man” in the 2000’s may be perceived as a person who is single, has no children and engages in perverse and shameful acts without any remorse. How is it possible that such radically different realities can exist in space and time despite identical terms being used both descriptively and normatively? Indeed, the understanding of these terms has changed because language itself has changed. Old social concepts have been deconstructed and new social concepts have been constructed in their place. With the perpetual alterations of language over time, social groups have also altered their own subjective shared realities thereby distinguishing what we can colloquially understand as pre-modern reality and modern reality. These changes will of course continue as humanity moves from a modern reality to either a post-modern or a neo-modern reality. The spiritual direction and character that future realities will manifest will depend on which social groups are able to take for themselves the power of language and dictate the path of humanity going forward.
The Trinity of Identity: Language, Culture and Philosophy
While the basis of identity is language, the development of identity over time is inter-dependent on mainly two more elements that constitute a trinity. These are culture and philosophy. Culture is begotten from language and functions as a subconscious operative in the construction and reinforcement of meanings towards an identity both in a descriptive and normative manner. Philosophy also originates from language and may both influence and be influenced by culture. Unlike culture, philosophy functions as a conscious operative in the construction and reinforcement of meanings towards an identity. Furthermore, culture may develop and shape a social body’s ethics, but it is philosophy that justifies them through its meta-ethics. Culture seeks to develop and refine the subconscious instincts of all members within a social body while philosophy seeks to develop and refine the conscious thoughts of its actual and potential elites. For a social body to develop its identity in a healthy manner, political and commercial power must be concentrated in the hands of a governing elite within the social body. It is the governing elite of the social body that should maintain the authority of affirmation and negation when it comes to the identity of the whole group. This is to say ultimately that it is this elite that authoritatively determines what the group identity is and what it is not.
What thoughts and actions are reflective of the group’s identity and what thoughts and actions are hostile against the group’s identity. Only in this manner can a social body develop a healthy and organic culture that is not constantly undermined by the divisiveness of political matters and responsibilities. A society that perpetually politicizes and commercializes every aspect of human life stifles and strangles its own ability to develop a healthy and organic culture. A healthy and organic culture can only develop in a largely apolitical environment where the great majority of a social body are disenfranchised from the world of politics and commerce and where there is no room for political or commercial plurality that may challenge the ruling elite in an openly divisive and antagonistic manner. Only in such an environment, where the great masses live their lives in an apolitical manner and in which a strong authoritative elite perpetually govern, socialize and harmonize the masses into a common identity, can a healthy and organic culture develop and strengthen the collective identity of the social group. In time, a “Hochkultur” or “high-culture” is produced. High-culture allows all members of a social group to harmonize together through common experiences driven by common ideals. It is high-culture that frees the members of a social body up to organically harmonize all component identities into one collective social identity that is both stable and holistic. This all encompassing collective identity can be understood through the concept of the “Volksgemeinschaft” or the “folk-community”. The folk-community both maintains and is nurtured by its high-culture and the two concepts are actually a married pair of a greater symbiotic concept one may call the “family”, the “folk”, the “nation”, the “race” or the “people”.
Interdependently, a coherent philosophy must be perpetually developed and maintained by the elites of the social group. For the elites, the purpose of philosophy is to cultivate and justify the culture of the great mass that they govern over. It is out of philosophy that political ideologies are constructed for the cause of consciousness construction and character development. It is also this curriculum that educates the future potential elites that may one day take over and occupy themselves with the faithful responsibilities of leadership and governance. Philosophy is therefore vital in both strengthening culture but also in maintaining the overall justification and jurisdiction of a particular identity and its ontological meanings and normative operations within the collective consciousness of a social group.
Both culture and philosophy are ultimately interdependent with culture being begotten from language and philosophy proceeding forth from language. The development and relations of these three elements of this trinity over time determine the development, maintenance and future of the identity that encompasses them. It should also be noted that culture can be understood as “religion”. Similarly, philosophy can be understood as “theology”. Any and all distinctions between these terms are unnecessary for the point and purposes of the thesis of this paper although they could certainly be made for the sake of further thoroughness if necessary.
Identity in Relation to Experience
If language, culture and philosophy determine identity intrinsically, then it is experience that shapes identity extrinsically. A recursive relation exists between the internal elements of identity and the external plane of experiences. Every experience from the outside results in a cognitive effect on the inside which may or may not change the fundamental character of an identity as a whole. This can be best understood through the interactions and influences that the consciousness of other social groups and their identities have on a given social group and its identity. Some social groups may bleed their consciousness into one another and this may result in linguistic, cultural and philosophic exchanges. In a more political context, the absorption of one into another may be the product of significant experiences whether they be positive or negative. Examples include conquering or being conquered by force, colonizing or being colonized, integration or assimilation or even a respectful friendship that leads to measured exchanges in political favors or preferential commercial trade.
Focusing in on a specific example of this “bleeding in” of new social concepts and their meta-linguistic foundations, one can look towards the Liberal Humanist concept of “privacy” in the English language. When the English speaking world made contact with and established political and economic relations with China in the modern era, there was no proper translation of the concept of “privacy” in a way that the Chinese could understand it. Consequently, the Chinese used to define the word “privacy” as “the American love of loneliness”. It was inconceivable within the Chinese collective character to conceptualize a term to describe privacy in the particular and specific manner in which modern Americans are used to understanding it. In time, of course, the Chinese did begin to understand the Americans and reacted accordingly for better or worse.
There is no shortage of types and styles of experiences that may result in character changes for the social groups that interact with each other. One can best imagine these interactions as mental membranes that are constantly coming into contact with each other with various permutations in consciousness occurring. In a sense, identity is always pulsating, vibrating and fluctuating to some degree. In certain times it is stable and arguably stagnant. In other times it is in flux and arguably changing whether for better or worse.
The framework for the development of a personal identity is identical to the framework for the development of a social group identity. The same questions and considerations have to be asked in every area of human life. These questions and considerations make themselves known right up to the level of geo-politics and international affairs both in the modern era and all throughout human history. One simply has to study political realism in order to understand how and why this is the case.
The Effects of Liberalism and Globalization on The future of Human Identities
Humanity in the 21st century has found itself in a seemingly unprecedented state. Not only has modernity provided a specific philosophy and culture that dominates much of the world today through an observable political and cultural hegemony, but it has found ways to propagate itself in ways never before realized. Liberalism’s universal values and principles have penetrated even the most resistant societies that have come into significant contact with it. This “neo-liberalism” of the 21st century spreads its spiritual empire through a type of “psycho-colonization” that uses a dynamic set of methods that include propaganda, soft-power, economic coercion and hard-power if necessary. While this may not be surprising in of itself, it is the complexity of this technocracy that reveals its unique and pervasive ingenuity. At its core, this technocracy appeals to the classical liberal ideals of post-enlightenment Humanism for its propositional foundations. Beyond this, however, it manifests a progressive individualism of sorts that ultimately deconstructs all opposing social constructs within the consciousness of the social groups it targets for conquest.
Seeking out any and all dissident personalities within an enemy social group, it attempts to empower them and use them in order to divide and conquer all enemies of the so called “rules based order”. Social media is used as a medium to target the worldwide youth and begin this process of “psycho-colonization”. The language that is primarily used for this purpose is English, however, other languages that have by and large been subordinated under this liberal empire’s hegemony also serve as vassals of the English language. Trendy terms and expressions such as “LGBTQ+”, “MeToo”, “Black Lives Matter”, “It’s ok to be White”, “Never Forget” etc. all get culturally transplanted into other languages in some form or fashion. These artificially constructed identities are then politicized within the framework of “universal human rights” and imposed onto the entirety of humanity.
Societies with significant populations of English speakers are the first to fall victim to this psycho-colonization. English is today considered the language of both commerce and pop culture. The most popular forms of media in the world originate in the English speaking world and produce worldwide trends among English speakers. English is not only the most spoken language in the world in terms of total number of speakers, but it is also the most popular secondary language to learn for non-English speakers. The British Empire once conquered three fourths of the world, however, it was not unique in how it conquered and operated its vast dominions. The industrializing French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, German, Italian, Russian and Japanese Empires all operated in a very similar fashion and served as proper competitors against Britain. This outdated form of colonialism was reduced to utter insignificance with the rise of the American Empire in the 20th century. After the second world war, the United States of America not only dominated virtually all markets of the world as spoils of war, but perpetually engaged in aggressive military campaigns to secure a new hegemony that even the British Empire could only ever envy. The only geo-political power in the world that was able to resist the American Empire at that time was the Soviet Union. This dipolar world however only lasted roughly half a century.
The fall of the Soviet Union on the 25th of December 1991 crowned the American Empire as the undisputed geo-political sovereign of the new unipolar world order. Any social groups that sought to further resist the psycho-colonization of their peoples and the Americanization of their societies could only do so from a defensive position as underdogs rather than equals. The rampant Americanization of the world in the 21st century is thus a direct consequence of an unopposed technocratic globalism that propagates this imperial liberal world hegemony of America and her vassal states.
The following passages from the cultural theorist Byung-Chul Han’s book, Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, reveal just how insidious and complex the psychological weapons of this empire today are:
"The freedom of capital achieves self-realization by way of individual freedom. In the process, individuals degrade into the genital organs of Capital. Individual freedom lends it an 'automatic' subjectivity of its own, which spurs it to reproduce actively. In this way, Capital continuously 'brings forth living offspring'. Today, individual freedom is taking on excessive forms; ultimately, this amounts to nothing other than the excess of Capital itself."
“Digital control society makes intensive use of freedom. This can only occur thanks to voluntary self-illumination and self-exposure. Digital Big Brother outsources operations to inmates, as it were. Accordingly, data is not surrendered under duress so much as offered out of an inner need. That is why the digital panopticon proves so efficient. Transparency is demanded in the name of ‘freedom of information’ too. In reality, however, this amounts to nothing other than a neoliberal dispositive. It means turning everything inside out by force and transforming it into information. Under the immaterial mode of production that now prevails, more information and more communication mean more productivity, acceleration and growth."
"Today, we are entering the age of digital psychopolitics. It means passing from passive surveillance to active steering. As such, it is precipitating a further crisis of freedom: now, free will itself is at stake. Big Data is a highly efficient psychopolitical instrument that makes it possible to achieve comprehensive knowledge of the dynamics of social communication. This knowledge is knowledge for the sake of domination and control: it facilitates intervention in the psyche and enables influence to take place on a pre-reflexive level."
“Power that relies on violence does not represent power of the highest order. The mere fact that another will manages to form and turn against the power-holder attests to the latter's weakness. Wherever power does not come into view at all, it exists without question. The greater power is, the more quietly it works. It just happens: it has no need to draw attention to itself.”
“Today, power is assuming increasingly permissive forms. In its permissivity — indeed, in its friendliness — power is shedding its negativity and presenting itself as freedom... The neoliberal regime's technology of power takes on subtle, supple and smart forms; thereby, it escapes all visibility. Now, the subjugated subject is not even aware of its own subjugation. The whole context of domination remains entirely hidden. Consequently, the subject thinks itself free.”
“Smart power with a liberal, friendly appearance — power that stimulates and seduces — is more compelling than power that imposes, threatens and decrees. Its signal and seal is the Like button. Now, people subjugate themselves to domination by consuming and communicating — and they click Like all the while. Neoliberalism is the capitalism of 'Like'. It is fundamentally different from nineteenth-century capitalism, which operated by means of disciplinary constraints and prohibitions. Smart power reads and appraises our conscious and unconscious thoughts. It places its stock in voluntary self-organization and self-optimization. As such, it has no need to overcome resistance. Mastery of this sort requires no great expenditure of energy or violence. It simply happens. The capitalism of Like should come with a warning label: ‘Protect me from what I want’.”
“The disciplinary subject changes from one milieu of confinement to the next. In so doing, it moves within a closed system ... The animal of disciplinary society is the mole.”
“In his 'Postscript on the Societies of Control', Deleuze diagnoses a general crisis affecting all milieus of confinement. Their closedness and rigidity pose a problem: they are no longer suited to post-industrial, immaterial and networked forms of production. The latter push for more openness by breaking borders down. But the mole cannot bear such openness. Accordingly, the snake takes the mole's place. The snake is the animal of neoliberal control society, to which disciplinary society has yielded.”
“According to Deleuze, the disciplinary regime organizes itself as a 'body'. It is a biopolitical regime. The neoliberal regime, in contrast, seems like a 'soul'. As such, psychopolitics is its form of government: it is 'constantly introducing an inexorable rivalry presented as healthy competition... wonderful motivation'. Motivation, projects, competition, optimization and initiative represent features of the psychopolitical technology of domination that constitutes the neoliberal regime. Above all, the snake embodies the guilt and debts that the neoliberal regime employs as instruments of domination.”
“Since the seventeenth century, Foucault claims, power has ceased to manifest itself as the godlike sovereign's capacity to deal death and instead taken the form of discipline. The power of sovereignty is the might of the sword. It threatens with death and exploits the 'privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it'. In contrast, disciplinary power is not a power to deal death, but a power over life: its function is no longer to kill but to 'invest life through and through'. Hereby, the 'old power of death' yields to the careful 'administration of bodies' and 'the calculated management of life'.”
— Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and Technologies of Power
While there are many more succinct passages from Han’s book that could be cited in order to showcase just how thorough and complex this system of psycho-colonization is, the overall point to be made here is that all social groups in the world today are facing the domineering consciousness of a neo-liberal technocracy. The language of this empire is English and the languages of its vassal states. The culture of this empire is individualism, commercialism, consumerism, materialism and capitalism. The philosophy of this empire is Secular Universalism and Humanism. These three elements form the trinity of the new overreaching “global identity” which seeks to destroy all social constructs that uphold oppositional identities. Even as early as 1927, German authors like Adolf Halfeld wrote books like “America and Americanism” in order to warn the world of what could happen should social and political trends continue just as they in fact historically ended up doing. While there were many political movements that rose in the 20th century to combat and avert this future, some of which even led to a second world war, the 21st century has shown and continues to show just how perpetually complex this technocracy is becoming in its dynamic systems of control.
The Telos of This Era’s War of Identities: How Protect, Resist, and Conquer
Even today, rising belligerent geo-political powers, such as Russia and China, are underdogs who have yet to reach what is required to properly combat the psycho-colonization of the world by the imperial liberal world hegemony. While America as a geo-political power may appear to be on the decline, the spirit of Americanism is far from finished. It continues to maintain a firm grip on the world in service of its masters. Any social group that seeks to resist it, must protect and take control of the language within the consciousness of its own people. It must educate its youth and potential future elites with a philosophy and worldview that is capable of refuting every aspect of the enemy’s doctrines as well as the enemy’s worldview as a whole. It must also instill among all members of its social group a culture that is fit to combat the degeneration and Americanization of its own identity. It must raise a consciousness among its people that is heroic, full of vitality, disciplined, strong, intelligent, vigorous and virtuous. It must become ever hopeful and always believing in its own mission of not only surviving the enemy, but conquering and subduing the enemy whether by pen or by sword. New songs should be sung that openly expose and condemn the psycho-colonization conducted against all who refuse to submit to the imperial liberal hegemony and her doctrines. Every effort must be taken to implement critical theory against the enemy in the same way that the enemy implements it against her respective enemies.
No social group that has a will to live should be satisfied with survival. The goal should be a total and utter counter-conquest against the current conquest that is being conducted. If any social-group seeks to revolt against the modern world, it must join a coalition with all other social-groups that pursue the same end. A universal crusade against Liberal Humanism, Egoism, Materialism, and Capitalism. Americanism must be the rallying cry of every social-group that is today opposed to this liberal hegemonic empire. Even this is not enough however. Every social group must also develop itself to rise beyond the occasion and prepare itself for the inevitable hardships that shall follow in disciplining oneself and cleansing oneself of all the chains that have often been self imposed and work only for the benefit of the enemy. Indeed, it is often the case that many members of a belligerent social group suffer from weaknesses that are either self imposed or proximally imposed and not properly remedied. In either case, they are weaknesses that are exploited to their fullest by the enemy. The first step in overcoming the enemy is to overcome one’s own “self”. It is the current “self” along with the kindred “others” that are the immediate obstacles in a world heavily governed by the enemy. The only way to move forward is to think upon the transcendental. To think about divinity, virtue and ultimately Godliness. And to transform one's own language away from the vulgarities and vanities of the contemporary and towards the noble praises and hymns of the eternal. In Christian sacred tradition the commandment is given as follows:
“And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise. Keep putting into practice all you learned and received from me—everything you heard from me and saw me doing. Then the God of peace will be with you.”
— King James Bible, Philippians 4:8-9
Language is the basis of identity. This is not only a thesis but a proclamation. Every argument in support of this thesis has but only been in service of this greater proclamation. The very act of philosophizing requires language as both a medium and a substance. Culture can not exist without communication and it is language that makes communication possible. The laws of identity are determined by language and only through language can one build social constructions that realize realities into being. Only through language as a fundamental prerequisite can consciousness develop and grow among an organic social group so that they may be mentally harmonized and exist in a commonly shared reality of their own. All political theories and their developments are both described and prescribed through language. It is language that is the fundamental subject of all political development in human history. All other things are secondary and subject to linguistic consciousness. When political and cultural theoreticians engage in their quests of knowledge, they must always be cognizant of language and linguistic contexts first. The development of culture, politics and philosophy can not be communicated without language. Even theories of meaning are restricted to language and can only express views insofar as a particular linguistic consciousness is capable of self-expression through its own developed language. In light of all these arguments, the thesis that language is the basis of identity is coherently justified and proclaimed as such.