On Tribalism
Steve Sailer's commentators are usually one of the best in the web, if only for the impression they give of being normal people who have just woke up to the fact that their culture is collapsing, and all they ever thought they knew is false. See this comment at a recent post on Sailer's.
Lizard Boy said...Reading this article, it finally hit me why Multicultural societies always fail: Because they are so goddamn boring. Everyone is forced to sit around discussing race and ethnicity all day long. In a creative White society, the main issues circle around new ideas and new inventions. Are we socialists or capitalists? What kind of society will technology bring us? What can we do with new engineering knowledge? That's the conversation in a homogeneous society with a decent IQ and level of creativity (most Western European people).But from now on in America, it will be Diversity and Sensitivity training. It will be this tribe vs that tribe. It will all revolve around how to carve up power. No more productivity or creativity.It will be this goddamn "Who Whom?" question for the rest of your life, then you die.
Indeed ethnic conflict is old as sin, and the dynamics that regulate it are also paleolithically simple and boring. But that's our curse, and I digress in the fact that there's a simple way out. Ethnic conflict is boring, but ethnic groups are a fascinating thing, if only because they spring out of nowhere. Ethnogenesis happens all the time, even among previously tightly knit groups. See my post on modern regionalism in Europe. Scots and English have a lot in common, yet they have been fighting a Who Whom for decades now. In many places in Europe, the official left/right political party divide is only a mask for regional (ethnic) conflict. See the Scots voting Labor, or East Germany voting Left. It will only get worse.
The simple reality is that tribalism pays. Cohesion pays. It's artificial assabiya, but it works as long as its properly enforced. The 18-19th century nation building created the vastly successful nations of Europe and East Asia out of thinly related regionally focused peasants. The lack of internal ethnic conflict was merely a product of a vast conscious effort by the early 19th century liberals. Agricultural economies without railways enforced regionalism. Most people didn't go farther than the market town close to the village. National allegiance was most of the time allegiance to the king, to his personal rule, not to the "nation“. Spaniards today hate each other, but they fought the Grand Armeé for loyalty to their "beloved" King.
As governments around the world have stopped enforcing centralized ethnogenesis, the native peoples of the West lost their tribal affiliation. Besides the emotional necessity to belong that humans may have, the enlarged modern bureaucratic government doesn't have a center of gravity, a sense of interest or porpuse. So it has become partial to organized groups, if only because they are easy to deal with. And tribes are one of the most tight-knit lobbies there are. So tribes, be them real tribes of third world migrants, or artificial tribes cooked up from medieval peasant identities, simply have the upper-hand. There's money to be made by lobbying the government, whether it's by La Raza, the AIPAC, Islamist groups in Europe or the SNP.
Who Whom is the language of modern government, so multiculturalism will happen, either with true cultures (the US) or with fake cultures (Europe and increasingly China). Whites aren't forbidden to build a tribe, they are forbidden to consolidate it. Many regionalist parties in Europe have started to protest NAM migration in regional, ethnic terms. Perhaps its the only way. White nationalism per se may be against the natural scale of human loyalty. Let's call it the political monkeysphere. Which means the solution is not integrating Europe into a white hegemon, but dismembering the US into feasible tribal states.
3 comments
[...] QOTD: "It will be this goddamn ‘Who Whom?’ question for the rest of your life, then you [...]
I think your last sentence is probably right, but I worry about the turmoil that may ensue between now and the collapse of the US federation, and between that and the construction of viable states.
The Chinese example is disheartening. It goes through cycles of collapse and division which quickly become an arms race towards reunification. And thats without modern weaponry. Our technology forces scale and integration. But our biology tells us to disintegrate. The prospect doesn't look good. Unless eugenics happens.