Identitarianism

TAKING THE MAGA OUT OF MAGYAR:

Is This Viktor Orbán’s Last Stand? (Paul Hockenos, 2/17/26, The Nation)

[T]he muscle behind Orbán and his party could hardly be more formidable: Vladimir Putin’s Russia, President Donald Trump, and China, too, line up behind Orbán, their favorite European leader.

And, yet, Fidesz is trailing a new opposition party, Tisza, by double digits and the buttons that Orbán’s pushed so deftly for 16 years—immigration, Hungarian nativism, anti-LGBTQ, “peace”—aren’t triggering Hungarians as they had in the past. Magyars appear fed up with the economic backlash of lost EU funding, the high cost of living, ubiquitous corruption, and a long trail of unseemly scandals.

APPLIED DARWINISM:

Why Team Trump Talking About ‘Lethalitymaxxing’ Should Alarm You: Trendy internet slang meets eugenics, the manosphere, and neo-Nazis. (Ilyse Hogue, Feb 20, 2026, The Bulwark)

The fitness-to-radicalization pipeline works like this: A young man who feels defeated by external factors finds power and community in spaces within his control. One of those places is the gym, where self-discipline is celebrated.1 This is not inherently sinister. The desire to be strong, healthy, and competent is deeply human. But if you go deeper into some parts of fitness culture, the message shifts almost imperceptibly from your value is determined by your body to some bodies—and therefore some people—are simply worth more than others.

RFK Jr.’s ‘concern’ about vaccines was never purely about what was in the syringe. He was always alluding to a logic familiar to those within eugenics movements: that strong, healthy, naturally resilient bodies don’t need pharmaceutical intervention, and that those who do are, in some fundamental sense, weaker. It’s no coincidence that Kennedy is now secretary of health and human services, and that Make America Healthy Again is the mainstream-laundered expression of that same ideology, only operating from inside the federal government.

Now, the Department of Defense is getting in on the game. The term “maxxing” comes from the looksmaxxing subculture—a bleak corner of the internet rooted in incel forums and built around the obsessive desire to optimize physical appearance. Where red-pill fitness and MAHA offered self-improvement as aspiration, looksmaxxing suggests natural remedy is not sufficient. Here, the ideology is even more explicit: Human worth is a function not just of genetics but how you can build on it. Your jawline, your clavicle width, your bone structure—these aren’t just aesthetic qualities. They are destiny. To improve them is to improve your social rank, your sexual prospects, and ultimately your value as a human being.

The “looksmaxxing” world grades men on a scale that ranges from “subhuman” to “Chad.” They trade techniques ranging from aggressive fitness regimens to hormone injections to “bonesmashing,” i.e., hitting your own face with a hammer to reshape your cheekbones. The movement’s newest star, a 20-year-old known as Clavicular, has injected his teenage girlfriend with fat-dissolving acid on livestream to reshape her jaw. He says he typically earns between $80,000 and $100,000 a month from streaming.

The looksmaxxing world is, as the Atlantic recently described it, “narcissistic, cruel, racist, shot through with social Darwinism, and proudly anti-compassion.”

NO ONE HATES JUST MUSLIMS:

NatCon Chief’s Muddled Brief: Yoram Hazony’s confused attempt to sort out the problem of right-wing antisemitism. (Gabriel Schoenfeld, Feb 18, 2026, The Bulwark)

As Hazony acknowledges, the Republican party is itself at risk for becoming infected by “relentless anti-Jewish messaging.” What he has in mind is not merely arguments about Israeli policy toward Gaza, but “the explicit and savage targeting” by rightwing podcasters “of Jews, Judaism, and Zionism.” Is this the future, he asks, of the Republican party?

The party, in Hazony’s description, is today divided into three distinct factions. A “liberal wing” led by figures such as Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, and Ted Cruz was once dominant, but in the Trump era, it has been in decline and probably represents no more than “25 percent of the party’s primary voters today.”

Then there is a nationalist wing, represented by Trump himself, as well as JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth. Hazony estimates that it makes up about 65 percent of the party and is distinguished “by its support for an industrial policy to restore America’s manufacturing capabilities, its outspoken rejection of compromise on immigration issues, and its skepticism of long foreign wars.”

Finally, there’s the alt-right, “which was mostly a fringe phenomenon until 2023, when big-name media figures Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens moved into this space.” Today, Hazony says, its voters comprise perhaps 10 percent of the Republican party.

But of course, the distinction Hazony is drawing between liberal and nationalist Republicans is completely contrived and even nonsensical. In what ways, fundamental or otherwise, do such “liberal” Republicans as Graham, Pompeo, and Cruz—all of them Trump sycophants—differ from Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth—all of them also Trump sycophants?

Once you unleash the Identitarian monster, you can’t get it to hate just one “Identity”

ESCAPING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY:

A persuasive critique of identity politics: Valorising the victim gives us not a more just world, but a world with less moral and aesthetic content (Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert, 2/08/26, The Critic)

The ideology of victimhood operates as an ersatz morality. Once status is conferred by self-appointed “experts”, social, institutional and material advantages often follow. But, as Daouda reiterates throughout her book, there is a high cost to acquiring victim status, namely, the renunciation of one’s personhood as a free-willed agent.

As always, Eric Hoffer described it best:

Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden…We join
a mass movement to escape from individual responsibility, or, in the words of an ardent young
Nazi, ‘to be free from freedom.’ It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared
themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves
cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not
joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?

WE’LL HAVE PLENTY LEFT WHEN WE CRASH INTO THE SUN:

The postliberal war on economics (Phil Magness, Feb 06, 2026, The Argument)

In a 2007 blog post, Deneen predicted an impending societal collapse from environmental degradation, noting “in all likelihood we’ll experience some severe civilizational dislocation in coming months and years as a result of peak oil.”

Peak Oil Theory was a trendy doctrine from the 2000s that foresaw an imminent natural resource depletion, whereupon fossil fuel energy production would enter into a rapid and irreversible decline. Widespread shortages and economic collapse would soon follow as our oil-dependent economy could no longer sustain consumption at current levels.

It has since fallen by the wayside among environmentalists as new fossil fuel exploration and better extraction technologies vastly expanded the world’s estimated oil reserves. Green activists today have shifted their arguments to emphasize climate change as their leading concern, even arguing for intentional fossil fuel sequestration on the grounds that the Earth’s atmosphere cannot handle the emissions that would arise from currently known oil reserves.

But for Deneen, the snapshot claims of late 2000s Peak Oil Theory provided the “eureka” moment that led him to develop postliberalism. He recounted this much on his blog:

[W]hen I learned about “peak oil” – that is, the imminent depletion of roughly half the world’s oil reserves, and by far the easiest accessible and cheapest stuff – it finally made sense to me why a political philosophy that I had long held to be fundamentally false – modern liberalism – nevertheless had prospered for roughly the past 100 years and had gone into hyper-drive over the past half-century.

Modern liberalism – the philosophy premised upon a belief in individual autonomy, one that rejected the centrality of culture and tradition, that eschewed the goal or aim of cultivation toward the good established by dint of (human) nature itself, that regarded all groups and communities as arbitrarily formed and therefore alterable at will, that emphasized the primacy of economic growth as a precondition of the good society and upon that base developed a theory of progress (material as well as moral), and one that valorized the human will itself as the source of sufficient justification for the human mastery of nature, including human nature (e.g., biotechnological improvement of the species) – is against nature, and therefore ought not to have “worked.”

In this telling, the posited resource limitations of Peak Oil Theory revealed not just the source of the coming environmental disaster, but its culpable party, which is to say liberalism — and specifically economic liberalism — itself.

The explosion of economic prosperity from the 18th-century stirrings of the Industrial Revolution to the present day depended upon fossil fuel in the literal sense. In Deneen’s reasoning, that fuel came from a limited resource that would soon be depleted. The Great Enrichment of the modern era, and indeed humanity’s escape from the multi-thousand-year Malthusian Trap of hunger and stagnation, only came about through artificial means that elevated humanity’s economic consumption beyond its “natural” state.

From Darwinism to Marxism to PostLiberalism, no bad idea has done more damage than Malthusianism.

BERNIE BRO IN CHIEF:

The ‘Affordability’ Horseshoe: The president is stealing progressive Democrats’ worst economic ideas. (Scott Lincicome, February 4, 2026, The Dispatch)


Trump was never a doctrinaire Reaganite supply-sider, of course, but his embrace of domestic economic policies championed by U.S. progressives is the clearest evidence yet that the “horseshoe” theory of politics—i.e., that the extreme left and extreme right have more in common with each other than with the moderate center—is alive and well in the United States. The similarities have been clearest on trade, where both the far left and far right uniformly disdain “globalization” and the “elites” who supposedly use it to profit at The People’s expense. But we now see the same parallels in domestic economic policy, too—both in the details and the script that each policy follows: target common enemies and offer easy solutions to complex problems—solutions that don’t actually work and, in fact, can often make things worse for the very people that they claim to be helping.

Trump’s “affordability” proposals follow the “horseshoe economics” script to the letter. Smacking institutional investors (aka “Wall Street”) might make for a great populist soundbite, but as housing expert Jay Parsons explained at considerable length (and as we’ve discussed here at Capitolism), there’s simply no good case for the ban, which would likely harm rental markets yet have a minimal effect on the supply of single family homes—even in investor-rich markets. (My Cato Institute colleague Norbert Michel has more on this myth in The Dispatch this week.)

Trump’s populist attack on Big Meat would be similarly ineffective: As Reason’s Jack Nicastro explains, there’s no evidence that meatpackers are, as Trump alleges, “criminally profiting at the expense of the American People,” because the real culprit for high beef prices is the greatly reduced supply of cattle in the United States and from Mexico, which is struggling to stave off the New World screwworm. (More bad news on that front today, unfortunately. Sorry, fellow carnivores.)


Other proposals, meanwhile, would be downright bad for most Americans

CALVIN COOLIDGE WAS NOT CONSERVATIVE:

What Trump Is Forgetting: American Nations Have a Long History of Open Borders (Daniel Mendiola, 1/27/26, The Guardian)

In the US, open borders were more of a default policy born out of the absence of legal restrictions, but this was still the case for nearly the first 150 years the country’s existence. Immigrants were by default presumed admissible, and the federal government did not implement immigration restrictions at all until until the late 19th century when it singled out Chinese immigrants for exclusion, though borders remained open otherwise, and even many Chinese were able to evade these laws by naturalizing in other countries first, such as Mexico. It was not until the 1920s that federal lawmakers experimented with a fully closed-border system (defined as a system in which any immigrant is presumed inadmissible until they demonstrate that they fit into one of the restricted, previously defined categories that would make one admissible and have that admissibility officially recognized by the state). This was a massive expansion of federal powers, and under this clunky new system, some decades saw heavier enforcement than others – especially for racialized groups such as Mexicans and Haitians – even as late as the 1980s, closed borders were flexible enough that a large-scale amnesty program could pass with relatively little controversy.

THE rIGHT IS THE lEFT:

The Poverty of Vanceonomics (Samuel Gregg, 1/14/26, Civitas Outlook)

[A]t the core of Vanceonomics is a preferential option for government intervention. Vance, for example, has spoken in favor of raising the federal minimum wage and even supported to that effect as a senator, despite the well-documented negative economic that such raises have on the job prospects of younger, poorer, and less-educated Americans.

This is not the only area in which Vance’s economic position aligns with the preferences of American progressives. Vance’s support for expansive antitrust laws that go far beyond the consumer welfare standard, which assesses the impact of proposed mergers and conduct on consumers, places him in the same camp as Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Federal Trade Commissioner Lina Khan, the latter of whom Vance once as “doing a pretty good job.”

Past and present advocates of expansive applications of antitrust insist that such measures ensure that large corporations don’t destroy market competition by leveraging their greater resources to establish monopolies by crushing medium- and small-sized businesses that might become potential rivals. In the past, Vance’s opposition to what Justice William O. Douglas once “The Curse of Bigness” was particularly directed against big tech companies. In February 2024, for example, Vance for the breakup of Google.

Vance’s antitrust views directly clash with long-standing critiques of expansive antitrust advanced by scholars such as, and. They pointed out that U.S. antitrust laws have been characterized by vaguely worded statutes and complex case law that introduce excessive uncertainty into the economy by making standard business practices, such as exclusive contracting, potentially unlawful. The subsequent shift towards the consumer welfare standard in court decisions from the late-1970s onwards simplified matters by focusing attention upon what really matters: the principle of consumer sovereignty, thereby limiting the type of government interventions that actually competition in the name, perversely enough, of preventing monopolies.

By contrast, Vance’s antitrust views downplay the extent to which more expansive understandings of such laws have been weaponized by companies to undermine existing competitors, but also by government officials seeking to punish businesses that refuse to cooperate with whoever is in the White House. Presidents ranging from to have gone down that path.

There is reason to be concerned that Vance might bring that outlook to the conduct of economic policy more generally. The vice-president has, after all, associated himself with those conservatives who have adopted the New Right’s friend-enemies logic to legitimize using the state to punish one’s political opponents. Penalizing people for their political views is hardly the purpose of, for instance, tax policy in any society that takes the rule of law seriously. Yet there have been occasions when Vance has expressed a desire to raise taxes on specific groups because of what he [sees] as their willingness to side with a “global oligarchy” instead of the United States.

DARWINISM IS FOREIGN:

Identity crisis: Importing foreign ideas is no way to strengthen American conservatism (Freedom Conservatism, Jan 19, 2026)

What separates us from the NatCons isn’t our respective commitments to preserving and strengthening the American nation. It is how we define that nation.

As American conservatives, we reject any attempt to import from Europe or elsewhere conceptions of nationhood that are inconsistent with America’s history, founding documents, and civic traditions. Other nations may profess allegiance to a throne or altar, or define citizenship based on shared ethnicity or religious affiliation.

Here in America, however, those are foreign ideas.

At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the populations of the rebellious 13 colonies included people of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, African, and Native American ancestry. Most were Protestant but some professed other faiths or none at all.

Later additions to the union such as Florida, Texas, and New Mexico included people of Spanish and indigenous descent who possessed distinctive cultures and whose ancestors lived in America before the settlement of Jamestown and Massachusetts. The final two states admitted, Alaska and Hawaii, contain descendants of other ethnic groups living in those lands long before the 1500s.

Add in the descendants of generations of immigrants to the present-day United States, and you have a mix of cultures, folkways, and histories that renders incoherent and absurd the notion of “heritage Americans.”

AMERICAN LIVES MATTER:

Emerging Evidence Provides Basis for Opening Investigation of ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good (Julia Gegenheimer, January 22, 2026, Justr Security)

Since Good’s shooting, facts have incrementally emerged that point to both the excessiveness of Agent Ross’s use of force and to his intent. Exhaustive reporting has helped establish many of the circumstances surrounding the Jan. 7 shooting, including through a multi-angle, step-by-step analysis of the incident. It’s a good start in determining whether the force was unreasonable. The fact that agents had been able to pass by Good’s vehicle; that Good was clearly turning her steering wheel and vehicle away from the agents at the time shots were fired; that there was a notable gap between Agent’s Ross’s body and the vehicle, at least at the time of the second and third shots; that he was the only agent on the scene to even attempt to use any kind of force—all indicate that resorting to deadly force was not reasonable under the circumstances. Prosecutors would, of course, want to test, corroborate, and build on that evidence through, among other things, ballistics analysis, complete autopsy and medical reports, and witnesses accounts. Definitively establishing where the agent was positioned when he fired the shot that, according to an independent medical pathologist’s report, struck the left side of Good’s head and likely killed her, will be critical.

The more difficult question, as in so many of these cases, is one of intent. Prosecutors must prove the agent’s thinking and motivation. To this end, there is evidence that Agent Ross did not view Ms. Good as an imminent physical threat. Multiple videos show, for instance, that Agent Ross’s own vehicle was able to get around Ms. Good’s SUV, that he chose to walk around the front of Ms. Good’s vehicle (thereby exposing himself to possible harm, and against DHS policy) with one hand occupied by a cell phone, and that, just prior to the shooting, Ms. Good told the agents, “I’m pulling out.” Other evidence suggests that Agent Ross may have shot because he felt annoyed or disrespected by Ms. Good and her partner, rather than out of fear for his safety. The former are improper motivations that would support § 242’s willfulness prong. From the outset, for example, videos show that Ms. Good and her partner stopped their SUV in the street and honked the horn repeatedly in apparent protest of the ICE agents. Additionally—and courtesy of the agent’s own cellphone video, which importantly provides a view of the incident from his perspective—we can hear Ms. Good say, “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you,” and her partner sarcastically tell Agent Ross to “go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Perhaps giving a window into his irritation at these remarks or Ms. Good’s attempt to drive away, Agent Ross muttered after firing his weapon at her, “fcking btch.” He walked away from Ms. Good’s SUV, which had by that point crashed into a parked vehicle (a clear sign that Ms. Good was injured or dead), and gestured to someone else to “call 911.”

Together, these facts are more than enough to show the allegation that Agent Ross willfully used excessive force when he shot Ms. Good is a serious one. And because that allegation, if proven, would constitute a violation of federal law, it is wholly appropriate to open a formal investigation into the shooting. (Indeed, it is no wonder that an initial FBI review reportedly concluded that opening an investigation was justified.)