(This requires an understanding of the previous post on debt.)
Politics is an extension of the amoral war for resources between humans trying to occupy the same ecological niche. It is what happens when at least one group wishes it could take resources by force, but is incapable of doing so. For example, the government typically claims a monopoly on violence within a certain geographical region, and punishes upstarts who attempt to elbow into their monopoly. Thus, these upstarts’ instincts are typically redirected into politics (or finance). But you can’t just go into politics and say “the government must send me resources from the commonweal”, because (red pill time) nobody gives a shit about you as an individual.
So the first thing to do is pick an identity. Everyone has a range of identities for which they can plausibly “pass”. Donald Trump, for instance, can pass for a successful businessman or a demagogue, but nobody would believe him if he put on a dress and claimed to be a candidate for the first female US president. He could not pass for a woman, even today when that’s the new “normal”, because his body type and personality are all wrong for it. Similarly, I can pass for a modern neanderthal but I could never pass as the leader of Black Lives Matter like Shaun King does.
(Arguably Shaun King can’t pass for black either, but your audience apparently matters a lot in terms of what’s “plausible”.)
Now you have an identity. Your job as a political activist is to demonstrate that your identity group has been treated unjustly in the distribution of the commonweal, in contrast to its contributions. In fact, your identity group has been carrying all these other useless, parasitic identity groups just because you have great big hearts and they have shown absolutely zero gratitude. Such a small slice of the pie is a grave injustice!
Identity politics a particularly malicious form of begging for charity that relies upon the idea of society owing your identity group an accumulated debt of resources. You’ll note that this strategy has diminishing returns because it trades social trust for resources. People play this game to the hilt in the 3rd world not because it nets them resources, but because everyone else does it and they have to stay on offense to keep what little slice of the pie they have. “My children will starve”, etc.
The logic of the idea works like so:
I belong to group X.
Group X contributes so much!
Groups Y and Z contribute so little!
Group X receives so little!
Groups Y and Z receive so much!
Group X deserves more!
(Therefore I personally deserve a cut of that “more”, and the right to distribute it as I see fit and *gasp* maybe even charge rent!)
Each of these statements is purely a matter of influencing perceptions toward the maximum range of what’s plausible, which means that when you engage in it you’re whoring out whatever social capital you have for common resources. It’s a recipe for conflict. The hope of all identity group leaders is that their groups will remember who brought home the gummint bacon, because as the alpha males they will be taking the first pick and distributing it to friends and family.
Diversity increases the range of plausible identity groups and the possibilities for parasitism. More parasites means fewer overall resources, which means desperation for those who can’t abide their living conditions, which means war. This is why diversity + proximity = war, and why the final stages of Glubb’s imperial cycle describes an influx of parasitic immigrant groups and a loss of faith.
Identity politics is the fourth part of this pseudo-thermodynamic four-cycle engine. It’s the bottom edge where the last vestiges of social cohesion are traded for gibs.