Raymond from Nedlands, WA, asks for the meaning of ‘identity politics’. Searching through various sources, I can provide a one-word definition: ‘tribalism’. Merriam-Webster says that ‘identity politics’ is a form of ‘particularism’, adding it is, ‘a political theory or practice advocating a right and freedom for each politically conscious or organised group’. Macquarie says it means ‘activism aimed at advancing the interests of a particular… grouping’. In other words ‘tribalism’. It’s an approach to political policy that rejects common humanity and individuality. In place of those, ‘identity politics’ treats people according to whatever tribal group they identify with. This cannot escape being highly divisive. In 1973 a book was published called 1984 Revisited, Prospects for American Politics, edited by Robert Paul Wolff. It included an essay by Todd Gitlin which spoke of ‘identity politics’ for the first time. Tod Gitlin (1943-2022) was a sociologist and a left-wing political activist. So, we can classify ‘identity politics’ as a bit of socio-babble coming out of the hard-left fringe. And it was clearly always intended to do what left-wing activism always seeks to do; namely, to divide society, bring an end to social cohesion and get rid of empathy for our fellow citizens. The purpose of ‘identity politics’ is to pit each tribe against every other, by alleging that they have no common interests and no common humanity. So, any political party that embraces ‘identity politics’ is rejecting our common humanity and individuality and treating us based only on our tribal identity. Such division can only end in the collapse of any such identity politics-driven nation.