Instinct would be ones tribe and family so that's dependent on if you consider an ethnic group at large to be an continuation of the tribal system and/or family system tbh (which I think it more or less is), the issue with that is that it would eventually lead of globalism as we become more and more connected, so an ideology would be needed to preserve the nation state and it's ethnic borders which would be Nationalism, so it's an ideology.
Just finished watching The man who would be King cracking film lads, absolutely holds up to the original
read my essay on tribalism lad
To be fair even in the modern UK the vast majority of the British population is against mass immigration whenever it's polled, the natural instinct is that strong. If we had a proper fair press and elite that represented the people it wouldn't matter.
Don't like all this fancy philosophical language, tbh. I'd rather speak in a way that'd let my every word be understood by Norf F.C.
Identitarianism is the future. We are in a new age we need an ideology relevant to our techno-cultural situation. Chauvanistic nationalism, fascism and natsoc are irrelevant failed ideolgies of the past tbh
Identitarianism is a framework for society. Similiar to how today we have a framework where both sides of acceptable and relevant politics must submit and perform rituals to globalism and mulitculturalism.
GI acts throughout europe largely autonomously, there is no single leader nor single authority of each specific national or regional branch. Power and legitimacy is only wielded on the brand for practical purposes, on ground it is lacking in hierarchy.
Regionalism is emphasised as an essential part of ones coherent identity and praxis, you have your civilization, your nation and then your dialect where each and every step of your identity is relient on the other. Without one you do not have a coherent identity and all are being eroded and must be rejuvenated.
The right and the left are both adherents to globalism, the right is and always has been just an expression of moneyed interest, there's practically no ideology in the Tories, CSU, En Marche and pretty much all the EPP parties; the left is the only one with a semblence of a coherent ideology. This is largely where the Nazbol types come and where GI atleast has its origin.
There will never be an identitarian party just parties that further the identitarian goal of relegating a faux- leftism and rightism to a playpen where they can have the aesthetic of being true to their beliefs but constantly aware they can never leave their pen. Where even the far left communist party must somehow form identitarianism and anti-immigration into their ideology for it to be allowed by society.
Greenpeace for example is a good but less effective example, they arent expressing a specific ideology that you can put on a pamphlet but they demand and form the political enviroment to incentivise and eventually force adherence to their beleifs.
so what if you live in a part of the country where you weren't raised. do you have to move back to where you were? and if you have children, aren't you depriving them of their region by moving back and taking them with you? do you have to abandon your children in their region and return to your own? what if you moved around enough growing up to the point where your dialect is effectively regionless or a mixture? what do you do then?
this just sounds like abandoning strategic politics altogether, leaving left and right parties to compete for power while focusing on a group's lifeworld or prefigurative politics (breaking away from the culture and politics, not contesting it and living in a bubble).
The game is rigged so that you can't compete with our kind of politics in the mainstream. The social cost to most people of being accused of racism is enough to switch enough people off that we'd never get a council seat in any area, let alone enough MPs to enforce any kind of change.