1. Millennial Woes defined a group here (he originally did so in an earlier video but this stuck in my mind):

A set of individuals: people who might share characteristics but don’t necessarily have any bond with each other, and whose existence is entirely in the present moment. Contrast that with a group: people who share characteristics and have a bond with each other, and can be considered the present iteration of an entity which might have existed in the past and might exist in the future. The concept of time has been introduced, which inaugurates the group as a group rather than a set of random individuals who happen to have some similarities.

2. After copying out the above i went shopping and in the supermarket queue was standing behind a youngish guy who, i decided, was probably ex-military: Germany had conscription till recently so that’s not so remarkable, though usually they lose the manner fairly quickly after leaving. Without really paying attention i paid attention to his interaction with the cashier (a new guy, young, German), and felt that not only was the customer ex- (or perhaps still) military, but the cashier was also, and there was a kind of recognition. i was mostly thinking about what i would write about groups upon my return, and was thus only vaguely aware of the slight differences in body language, gaze, movement, etc. of the two, and then the cashier asked if the customer wanted the receipt, he said no, and the cashier said, Alles klar, and i smiled to myself; for outside of Das Boot

in my eight years in Germany i have only ever heard this phrase from Bundeswehr soldiers and i felt the cashier was either half-consciously letting him know, “i was in the Bund” or it was a wholly unconscious sympathetic response.

3. On the walk home i analysed my recognition of the two and realised that every single element could be disputed, that is not a single datum was in itself absolute proof. However, the presence and relation of several data is both difficult to explain and yet almost immediately sensed and typical of a particular identity. When i think, what characterises the group Bundeswehr, i would say they are brisk and yet relaxed, and don’t fidget. They often try not to look like soldiers, perhaps in the same way alcoholics try to act sober when they’ve in fact had a few ales.

4. Human beings are eminently social animals. But then, even animals are largely social. The social instinct – to identify with a group – seems innate. From a reductive biological perspective, those who lacked the sense of a group, and the desire to belong, are highly unlikely to have survived. So, if there is some biological basis to group identity (i find it hard to imagine that birds, by trial and error, figured out how to build nests or fly in formation, and then each generation somehow teaches its offspring in a manner no human observer can detect), probably everyone has it to some degree.

5. In our rather nauseating times, it is popular to declare oneself an individual. i am a human being! they say, Not a European! Fine but such folk merely reposition their group from the genetic and local to the political, and with oddly more ferocity – where hardcore Bavarians for example will happily say that they are not really German and Berliners are just Prussians, they don’t generally dislike non-Bavarians – they just regard them as different and a bit odd. But talk to a Leftist and, well – you don’t even need a signed copy of Mein Kampf anymore, it’s enough to say things like this:

and you’re in the gulag forever; i mean, unless your name is Clinton. i can’t think of a single person of my acquaintance who doesn’t express this group-desire in some form or another.

6. i don’t really see why people talk about individualism as if it’s even possible for more than a tiny number of, well, oddballs. You need an internal momentum and integrity to resist the allure of the consensual, and that is naturally rare. Those who advertise themselves as individuals are usually just losers who want to be cool, and then become partisan and join clubs and dye their hair blue and read the Guardian; and perhaps put on funny clothes, smash shit up, and get some of that sweet Soros gro. Those who are truly individual tend to an indeterminable, deep identity which also makes them hard to predict and liable to change their own mind on peripheral topics, and to associate with a variety of folk – for example, Styxhexenhammer666 has talked with civic nationalists like Sargon, the Jewish Bernie bro progressive H.A. Goodman, the Alt-Right Richard Spencer, the an-cap Stefan Molyneux.

The rest of humanity are just normies – they can be intelligent, they can be interesting, but ultimately they are driven by the need to be acceptable, and if tomorrow it became mainstream to eat babies they would read New York Times editorials on the health and social benefits of infantophagy and at first stare, uncomprehending, then nod slowly, and lick their lips, and when they look up to see the same narrative on CNN they will think, Yes, I always thought we should do something like this!

And the more intelligent they are, the cleverer their justifications and post hoc analyses.

7. Although i understand nothing of Physics, one could use the metaphor of particles & waves, and say that each person is an atomic thing, a particle, but part of being a particle is to also be a wave. From the particular standpoint, waves are illusory, are fancies and nonsense. One can take a teaspoon of water from a wave of the sea, and find no evidence of the wave in these five or so milliliters – that does not disprove the wave.

Perhaps it is better to say, not that the wave is greater than the teaspoon of water, but that they occupy different realities – or are different ways of seeing reality; the dancer & the dance.