I would disagree. When a person or people sets upon the journey of self-realization, they may have already eradicated their group affiliations and have assumed only one identity: to be a human. There have been many people in the human history who shunned every and all of their identities except of being a member of humanity. By disassociating I mean disassociating from the false pride and grandeur of a certain identity. Remaining a member of a certain group and not having that false sense of pride or superiority some fellow-members may boast is very much possible.

I find this phrase to be a very interesting and intense statement albeit a loaded one. Are identities really CONSTRUCTED? Yes, I believe! These identities are poured into our minds by our parents, our teachers, our media, and our politicians. To me every one of these identities is like a chain and a shackle. Till the time we are wearing these identities, we remain constrained and limited in our thoughts and actions. When we break these chains, we can think and act freely. This does not necessarily mean that we denounce our identity(ies), I am simply saying that we keep our identity(ies) as mere apparatus of identification and nothing more; we must not associate any pride and vanity with our identity(ies).

I modestly disagree. This definition seems to be the sinister version of identity. It is like ignoring the good side of a thing and only highlighting its bad side (like saying that television is a source of spreading hate, while doing away with the fact that television also spreads good thoughts and knowledge too)

Why should we oppose identity in the first place? and what other utility of identity should be there except just to identify a person or group. It should be like the name of a person e.g. Peter Parker (aka Spiderman). If someone wants to get the attention of Peter, they will call out his name and Peter will respond, that's it! But if Peter wants to force people to love and respect his name (or his identity) and in this effort he tries to instigate fear in them, Peter will be a bad boy. Likewise, there have been (and probably are) many people who in an effort to impose upon others their identity have done heinous things.

Yes the concept of indispensability of having an identity is very unclear. Some people and groups will kill to maintain their distinguishable identity, while others will give away anything to remain anonymous.

Really? I think over the years, this generalization of the writer also seems to have succumbed to the media management apparatus being used by the global power elite. An example to quote out of numerous incidents where the powerful went against the popular consensus can be the decision of Prime Minister Tony Blair to invade Iraq even though majority of the British Citizen rejected such intention.

This is very important! For sustainable world peace, this silent majority will have to start seeing the reality with their own eyes and not through the projected twisted, falsified, and leading (rather misleading) type of reality portrayed through the mass media which is again owned by the so-called "powerful" minority. This setup is almost brutally enslaving.

Has the writer deliberately omitted the mentioning of "string-holders" or puppeteers holding strings of the apparently powerful state-functionaries? The US president (POTUS) is considered to be the most powerful person but it is surprising to observe that although their personalities being starkly different from each other, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump, did not considerably deviate from a set pattern of US foreign policies during the last almost half a century.

Very interesting and relevant! But from where the head of state gets that immense power? The power of the head of state is not their intrinsic or personal authority, it is entrusted upon them. So, if the head of state uses the entrusted power against the intended purposes of that entrustment, they are committing a grave and criminal abuse of the entrusted power.

This is factually correct, but one of the most important concerns should be "are the images of relevant and unbiased persons taken into account while a decision, which most probably will affect their lives radically, is being made?" If so, the decision-making process may be termed as democratic.

That is very interesting! But this raises may be the biggest question: "whose responsibility is it to ensure that the image of a scenario being presented to the policy-makers is actually the real image (or at least very near to real) of the situation?" If under the false perception of a situation, a hostile and devastating policy is made, whether the person(s) portraying the wrong image to the decision-maker(s) is at fault or the decision maker(s) themselves?

The writer here substantiates their earlier approximation that "what is relevant and what is not" primarily depends on the subjective understanding of the concerned person or party.

So some people see a scenario as relevant/irrelevant, but for others it might be a matter of life and death. For example, 2001 Afghan invasion by America may be seen as relevant by America's strategic policy-makers but it cost thousands of innocent civilian life.

An interesting definition of "nations"