Hierarchy of Identity

Who are you?

Please comment with any disagreements, I am open to having my views on this changed. I specifically note in this article that the terms ethnos, tribe, nation, and race have all been conflated in various points in history, but perhaps through looking at these conflations we can better understand just how our identities have been utterly subverted. I am quite willing to change my mind, because there are a few reasonable ways to look at the layers of identity, and this is just the one I have been pondering.

Admittedly, I first heard the phrase Hierarchy of Identity from Thomas Rousseau of Patriot Front who said it during his interview with

Aarvoll

of the Return to the Land Initiative (here is the interview) - however, I have touched on this idea before in various articles. I will divert from Tom’s understanding because I will be focusing almost entirely on genetics coupled with the basic concepts of tribes, communities, and nations. Generally, I have tried to frame this rhetorical argument through historical and personal examples, but with a backdrop of nationalism or folkish paganism. Today, I am going to dive into things a bit more thoroughly, since this topic is near and dear to my heart, and identity is a confused topic lacking true foundation.

All humans must answer some simple questions to begin acting with agency in life. Three simple questions in particular, these being:

1. Who are you?

2. Where are you?

3. What ought you be doing here?

The first question is the one we will be covering today. I partially cover the “where are you? / what ought you be doing here?” in this article on the Chaoskampf, but these questions deserve more serious answers because when if you look closely into these questions, you’ll find that there is an hierarchy of acceptable answers with much overlap between them. For some background material which explains how this hierarchy can be discerned and proven, it would be useful to understand the Ancestral Principle, roughly explained here by

Imperium Press

.

---

1. Surrogate Ideologies

First of all, it would be good to review my article “Surrogate Ideologies” because most people in the West associate themselves with subcultures in pop media such as sports teams and musical genres, youth movements, political ideologies, religious organizations, or regional polities. Millions of humans are currently ignoring their real identities for their proffered surrogate ideologies such as being a hardworking employee (wagies, boomers, etc.), a social bandwagoner (goths, punks, etc.), a religious adherent (White Muslims reject their identity to assimilate with Arabs, and Christians often say their tribe is Christendom and there is no jew or Greek, for example), or even a political activist (countless people ignore their actual familial loyalties for political reasons). Indeed, far too many people have chosen these things over their familial and genetic identities which were forged through millions of years of human existence.

To these people, these social ideologies and cultural or religious practices are far more important than their natural born identities. The fact of the matter is that all of those surrogates can change (that’s the point of it being a surrogate) but your racial, ethnic, familial, and genetic identity was given to you at birth and these are the foundation to your body and spirit. You cannot change the fact that you are the child of two specific parents, who are likewise the children of parents, who have their own parents, and so on and so forth. You cannot change the fact that the previous experiences of ancestors shaped the genetic profile and cultural backdrop of your family. You cannot change any of that because it is physically and spiritually real, while surrogate ideologies can be changed or mitigated because they are largely social edifices which are more subject to decay than ancestral lineages.

Think about it for a moment. There are specific male and female lineages which are extending from the primordial past into modern Europeans - but, there are many primordial lines lost to time, along with their accompanying civilizations, such as many of the Old European groups. Their societies and the things they believed about themselves (religion, philosophy, culture) simply died out. However, each person alive is descended from a unbroken chain of direct male fathers (Y-haplogroup) and direct female mothers (mtDNA) and these two chains bind people to each other over vast stretches of time and incredible lengths of geography, literally stretching back to the primordial past and the creation of our people. This has more importance to our foundational identities than any social edifice ever could precisely because we are born from specific peoples and our bodies and souls are first shaped by those who came before (which is what ancestor means anyway). This is the Ancestral Principle at work within the Hierarchy of Identity, for authority and association goes to our unbroken chain of direct forefathers which takes us back to the beginning of creation.

To recapitulate, our identities are given to us at birth and our experiences in life simply shape and mold that foundational identity. It is not enough to merely acknowledge our race - many liberals do exactly that when they push for DEI - in fact, we have to affirm our race, meaning to make firm, strong, and stable. This is life-affirming compared to surrogate ideologies which are generally quite life-negating in comparison.

To quote from my article on the subject:

The issue here is that political, religious, or social ideologies are not capable of supplying a holistic, wholesome, and robust identity, while nature readily supplies us with an innate genetic identity that has the capacity to create wholesome ideologies - ideologies which are simply accoutrements on the foundational identity.

This is because ideologies are only surrogate identities.

Etymonline gives this for “identity”2:

c. 1600, "sameness, oneness, state of being the same," from French identité (14c.), from Medieval Latin identitatem (nominative identitas) "sameness," ultimately from Latin idem (neuter) "the same" (see idem).

Your identity is the same thing as yourself. This “state of being the same” is our natural state, the very reality we experience from birth until death, and beyond. This is known as the Law of Identity, which is perhaps best encapsulated in this phrase by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: "Everything is what it is,” which just means that each thing is the same as itself.

The concept of racial, ethnic, national, or tribal identity all relates to physical and spiritual states of our experienced reality. You cannot change your race or ethnicity, and you cannot change the fundamental spirit that animates your body.

2. Ethnogenesis

Ethnogenesis tends to be the starting point for most people when they consider racial, ethnic, and familial identity, and that is quite appropriate since ethnic groupings are quite localized and the mytho-poetic narratives concerning the genesis (creation) of related ethnos can bind groups together and provide them with astonishing group identity and group agency. There are countless examples from history to pull from such as the Irish, Germans, or the French, but we can also look at modern groups such as the Jews. The stories people weave around the real events which shaped them as a people allows them to reach greater heights than if they never considered such things. This is simply healthy on a societal and individual level, so it makes sense why modern folks naturally gravitate towards ethnogenesis when it comes to understanding their ethnos.

Ethnogenesis takes a long time unless it involves complete population turnover on the male line due to warfare and genocide. In that case, the captured females tend to provide a fast-track to ethnogenesis for the victorious males, however in these cases the ethnogenesis can truly only take place if the two groups are racially separate. For example, when the Bell-Beakers conquered the Megalith Builders, they did not immediately create a new ethnos that was unrelated and disconnected genetically and culturally from the wider Bell-Beaker world - in fact, it is well-known that Bell-Beakers maintained close familial and kin ties with distant relatives far away. It took a very long time for the Bell-Beakers of Ireland to become the Gaels, for instance, and when the closely related Celts appeared out of the old Bell-Beaker strongholds in Central Europe and began to spread westward just as their ancestors did, the Gaels welcomed aspects of the Celtic culture which further impacted their ethnogenesis. This process took quite some time when you really think about it, and there are many other events in more recent history such as the Norse and Germanic invasions and mixings, but even in this case the groups are so similar that it is quite easy for lines to enter into each other’s ethnos over a few generations. Good examples would be the Norse-Gaels and the Anglo-Irish, or the Borderlanders and the Cornish, sub-ethnos within larger nationalities.

Ethnogenesis can also be very fast. A good example would be the invasion of the Moors and the creation of Al-Andalus. The creation of the sub-ethnic grouping of Andalusians did not take very long to create because of the genetic distance between the invading North African Moors and the conquered Germanic Visigoths. Of course, one could also compare this to the creation of Turkey, which was likewise a relatively quick ethnogenesis for many Anatolian Europeans who were decidedly not Turkic hundreds of years ago. These two events shook the European race, spurring on great Rhineland Massacres, the Reconquista, the Crusades, and many nationalist rebellions against foreign tyrants. These natural reactions by Europeans came about because ethnogenesis that occurs through conquering has an inverse effect on the conquered ethnic group and the larger racial body they are related to.

Imagine for a moment having your left hand cut off. That is what happened to our race when the eastern expansions of Indo-Europeans known as Aryans (amongst other tribal names) fell to foreign conquest. Events such as those are rife throughout human history, indeed the Aryans conquered many foreign tribes as they expanded far into the East in those ancient days. This trauma cannot be avoided for it will be encoded into genetic memory, cultural memory, religious mythopoetics, and historical narrative. We must therefore examine this in tandem with ethnogenesis, since these traumatic events for racial groups shape them going into the future, which has a physical correlation to their ethnogenesis. Tribes can be conquered, their men killed, their women raped, and they can become something new, an amalgam of both.

This is why ethnogenesis is so important to identity, because the genetic history of our families relates directly to our real history.

---

3. The Hierarchy of Identity

Now that we have covered the fake identities (surrogate ideologies) people use to replace their natural born identities, and we have covered how these natural born identities can be formed and shaped through history (ethnogenesis), we can explain how the hierarchy of identity truly functions.

It would be important to understand the PIE root *gene “give birth, beget” is the foundation of countless important words (such as genetics) utilized for civilization and mythology, most important perhaps being genesis and nation. So, this primordial root found its way into all these different concepts strictly because families form tribes (now we form communities instead of tribes), which form ethnicities, which form nations, which form races, which form the species. These terms are not interchangeable and they are not synonymous with each other, there is just a helluva lotta overlap owing to the intense amount of shared genetics between different groups, regardless of social opinion on the matter.

Ethnos, tribe, nation, even race are often conflated and treated as synonymous with each other throughout history. This is understandable because tribes are often sub-ethnicities, and nations often contain many tribes, but the fact is that my tribe is a collection of related families gathered together for a common purpose and goal in my local region, but an ethnos is something that can exist outside of a tribal, or even national identity. For example, the Boers of Africa are a branch of the Dutch ethnos and they are members of the larger Afrikaner nation. They primarily share common Dutch background, but they do not live in Holland, and they share a nation with people of Anglo and Huguenot background. Of course, some of these Anglos and Germans have assimilated into the Boer collection of families (ie: tribe) but many of them remain associated with their ethnic background and remain Afrikaner nationals. Perhaps America with our many sub-ethnic identities ranging from the Cajuns to the Yankees now makes more sense? There is so much confusion because there is so much crossover depending on the context, but these ideas are still distinct and can be proven to be so with careful historical and genetic analysis.

Again, sometimes a tribe is its own ethnicity and nation. You can leave your tribe and nation and assimilate into another, but your ethnicity or race would remain the same until sufficient mixing has occurred. Of course, some people will not like that I am basically equating tribes to regional communities, but this is for a specific purpose. Tribalism doesn’t exist with the vast majority of Whites anymore, but we are still heavily keyed into our regional identities. A Southerner has a different heritage to a Northerner, a Midwesterner is different to a Pacific Northwesterner. I specifically note that these are basically our new tribes because we fill all the same basic functions - our regional economy, law, and culture are not enough to break us into different ethnicities, but they are enough to cause disagreements and conflict reminiscent of old tribalism. For example, the attitude of Southerner versus Yankees, or the attitudes of Hoosiers versus Buckeyes (which is a state identity).

This tribal level is basically non-existent for most Whites, and it would be more than fair to replace the tribe with the community or state, since it basically plays the same role these days. We tend to get occupations, houses, and spouses in our home-communities and this is exactly how tribes operated - furthermore, a different person of different ethnic background could join a tribe who is not of their direct lineage, and this is very similar to how modern communities work. The main difference here is that modern communities often lack group identity based on shared lineage, even if that lineage is present such as in the many American regional identities such as the Midwesterner. Many Midwesterners do not view each other in any sort of familial sense, but we do view ourselves as members of a wider regional community based in geography, culture, and racial relation. Basically, if multiple clans come together to build a community, they are doing the first steps of building a tribe, therefore I have included this understanding in my hierarchy.

Furthermore, when we consider the Germans as an ethnic group, we quickly find that they have many sub-ethnic groups and even tribal/community identities. They are probably the easiest example to point to when it comes to the conflation and cross-over between these many concepts.

Here is the hierarchy again:

1. Family, the household, the clan, the direct relations born from the same parents and greater grand parents (e.g. McMillan)

2. Tribe, the tuatha, the locally allied community, generally a regional kin group regardless of direct ancestry from greater grand sires - nowadays broke down into basic regional identities (e.g. Midwesterner)

3. Ethnos, the direct blood relations according to shared direct ancestry (e.g. Scots-Irish, a genetic branch of the Gaels)

4. Nation, the larger geographical and genetic kingroup (e.g. American)

5. Race, people descended from a common ancestor with sufficient amounts of genetic relation to be isolated from other races (e.g. White)

6. Species, the larger hominin group called humans

There were once other species of hominoid and hominin long ago. This is why there exists different races, because we immediately divert and isolate from each other at the level of species and sub-species owing to our primordial ancestors (which we do not share at a certain point). An example of an extinct species would be the neanderthal, although some populations such as East Asians and Indians have the highest degrees of this ancient population group. Erroneously, they claim that Europeans have the most neanderthal DNA when we decidedly do not according to the data, which makes sense when we study the ancient war that the ancestors of the Europeans, (the Cro-Magnon) and neanderthals fought for Ice Age Europe. Other examples of extinct species include the Homo Erectus or Homo habilis which are ancestral to Africans, or the Denisovan which is ancestral to Asians.

This concept of isolation and mixing can be taken and applied to the rest of the levels of the hierarchy. Races have within them many nations. Some of these contain sub-ethnicities of related groups which have somewhat isolated or mixed to be considered unique in historical terms to their larger national grouping. There can be many tribes coming together under one ethnic banner, and there can be many communities forming a tribe. We can examine the different groups of archaic Britain such as the Gaels, Britons, Norse, and Anglo-Saxons, but over the course of time their national and ethnic identity has changed to produce the United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, England, and perhaps we could include Cornwall and some smaller groups like the Manx from the Isle of Man. Their direct backgrounds vary, but due to overlapping lines of kinship, they are capable of grouping together into ethnicity and nationality.

Ultimately, this hierarchy is based on shared lines of direct descent through fathers and mothers. Particularly, European societies (along with most others in the world) are paternalistic and patriarchal. We focus on patrilineal lines of descent, and this honestly makes the most sense from a genetic and mytho-poetic level since the genesis of life starts with the man’s seed which he plants into the female’s soil. At the end of the day, my identity was given to me at birth. I cannot actually replace this identity. Therefore, this is something that must be embraced and explored - I must affirm my identity and help strengthen it. It is no issue for me to affirm my hierarchy in this way, for my immediate responsibility surely goes closely related and located kinfolk rather than distant ones.

Submit to the Hierarchy of Identity, and drop the oikophobia.

---

Hail victory! Thank you very much for reading, and good-end! o///