Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Given that WEIRD white populations are clearly too inherently individualistic to survive the tribal conflicts of a globally-connected world (see Wilhem Ivorsson in conversation with Harry Robinson here), and thus our extinction (and that of the culture we produce) is totally inevitable, if a white Westerner wants to have some kind of descendants and positive legacy long-term, which non-WEIRD culture should they seek to marry and “assimilate” (actual assimilation being only ever a multigenerational phenomenon involving intermarriage) into?
Join a functioning and high fertility white subgroup.
They're just as doomed as every other white subgroup, because it doesn't matter how many kids they have, they'll be picked off bit-by-bit by enemy tribes and rival cultures. Because you need a certain level of (and may Allah forgive me for uttering this word) asabiyyah to fight this sort of tribal war, and all of us whites are genetically incapable of attaining it — we will never be capable of thinking in the sort of "my tribe versus other tribes" thinking we see in, say, Somali scammers.
It's a big part of the "secret sauce" that made us so successful. But it also means we're a delicate, mutant hothouse flower that was only able to survive in the relative geographic isolation of premodern Europe. Under the conditions of modern global mobility and interconnectedness, we simply cannot survive.
Somali scammers will scam and rob each other as cheerfully as they scam us (see actual Somalia for evidence) - the idea that they are some kind of high-asabiyyah society which gains an advantage over the west through tribal unity is absurd. Tolerating this kind of behaviour in Minnesota was a (foolish) choice, not an skill level issue. See for instance this Patrick McKenzie post about how institutions that actually want to stop fraud (including regulated financial institutions) do so.
To support your point, It seems overall that the more 'tribalist' a culture is the more they are happy to abuse their fellow tribesmen and the less 'nationalist' they are. As an example, the European states with the strongest buy-in for mass nationalism a century ago, largely Northwestern European nations, are also the ones most onboard with 'globohomo' right now. The states where universalism is weakest now, such as Italy or Russia, also had the least popular buy in for nationalism historically. While Germans and Frenchmen where enthusiastically lining up to fight for La Patria, Russians and Southern Italians had to be coerced into fighting (to simplify the picture).
It seems worldwide the cultural divide is less 'universalist/individualists WEIRDos vs. nationalist/tribalist foreigners who united to mess with WEIRDOs' and more 'ideologically minded/high trust cultures vs. clannish cultures', and those clannish cultures abuse each other just as much as they abuse outsiders.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who is "we" here? I mean, some Davos dwellers like to think about a completely cosmopolitan society where tribal markers - at least for white people - are nothing but entertaining bits of trivia, but I suspect this is only until shit starts really hitting the fan. Then The Gods of Copybook Headings will be back. Living through that period probably gonna suck, because the excesses of tribalism are not very pleasant, but I don't think it's gone.
More options
Context Copy link
Psshh. Europe dominated the world in the first globalization. Whites conquered the Western hemisphere when it was full of brown people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those who insist that White people are natural “individualists” have no knowledge of the history and spirit of Europeans, and their inability to intuitively see their error should make you suspect of everything they say about cultural and political topics. I mean, you can pick any decade of Western history from before the late 19th century to see that White men have never construed their identity as individuals first and foremost, but as belonging to male organizations of civic, political, and religious natures — and that these comprised their whole identities, that they seldom had a thought of their individuality beyond collective affinities, and that they willingly and even joyfully gave their lives up for the interests of these collectives. Charitably, these people are using a definition of “individualist” that is so far removed from what any normal person would understand as to make its usage utterly worthless, like insisting on using the word “big” to refer to something small. Or perhaps most charitably, they are engaged in a psy-op to make you believe that White people are inherently slave atoms divorced from collective enthusiasm in a bid to make you a permanently powerless slave consumer, and they are doing this on purpose, and this is most charitable because it means they aren’t just incapable of perceiving the theory of mind behind any historical era. (Barring a few exceptions, like Emersonian Self-Reliance et al). I cannot understand how someone can read about the communist movements and fascist movements of the 20th century and come away with thinking, “oh yeah, this part of the world is individualist, they are chiefly interested in themselves”.
The tribes that White people have formed in history have been uniquely based on fraternity, or brotherly love. This separates them from the oriental whose tribes have been based on pure genetic similarity or submission to authority. Western men gathered to drink alcohol, distribute honors, and sing songs together; there is hardly a note in Chinese history of a volitional organization involving group singing like you find all throughout the West. This might be why people mistake them for “individualists”. But medieval guilds, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, monasteries, political alliances, communism, early Christianity, Greek mystery cults, fascism, etc etc were all about collective identity. White people are naturally collective-oriented, just like every other type of human. But their penchant has always been brotherhood, and especially brotherhoods based on just distribution of resources. Because, like many primates, if the leader of the primate band is hoarding resources we would very much like to form a coalition to destroy them. This is all natural, primitive. (In Christianity we wait joyfully for God to destroy them, while shaming them while they live.)
Anyway, the reason you do not have a tribe in Western culture is for the following reasons:
The psy-op that tricked you into including women in you social organizations, which immediately destroys the capacity for brotherly love by making everything about seducing whichever girl is prettiest. Absolute vibe-killer.
The psy-op to make you associate “brotherhood” and “collective purpose” and “glory and honor” with traumatic imagery from the holocaust
the psy-op to make you deferential to the rich, when the power behind social organizations has always been the loosening of resources from the wealthy, either through shaming them or honoring them for their endowments
the elimination of brotherly love from educational literature, unless it is portrayed negatively, like in a separate peace. Similarly, the elimination of coalition building in literature
The eradication of European patronage networks, where Patronage is the wellspring of social love. (Minorities of course can continue doing this)
More options
Context Copy link
This strikes me as a fool's errand. TFR is cratering worldwide, even in the Global South. There's not much point marrying into an Indian, Nigerian or Subsaharan African community and going native, when the results will be indistinguishable in just a generation or two. My dad had 8 siblings, and then he and and the rest of his brothers and sisters had 2 or 3.
You're better off trying to go Mormon, for a certain definition of "better".
Why? They're no more suited to tribe-on-tribe conflict than any other WEIRD whites. They are just as individualistic, just as genetically incapable of the level of tribal identification and collectivity necessary to survive the tribe-on-tribe conflicts of a mobile interconnected globe. They will never attain the "my tribe against other tribes" mentality of, say, the average Somali scammer, and thus they will fall prey to tribes like those of that scammer. They will try to wage ethnic battles as free individuals — and they will lose.
And they will die out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're thinking of this in terms of race, you gotta be more granular. Look for big families. Races don't have kids, people do. And people come from families with their own norms about kids. All you gotta do is find a big, close family to marry into. Find you a girl with double digit siblings, that will do more for your genetic legacy than trying to read the tea leaves about future social climbing.
My grandfather has nearly eighty direct descendants, I have thirty nieces and nephews and almost two hundred cousins. My family reunions are hundreds and hundreds of people strong. Some of us are criminals, some are religious nutcases, some are poor, more than a few are a bit trashy. But we are fertile. There will be no shortage of my clan in the future.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link