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?
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
More options
Context Copy link