On Tribalism

(This post is part of the ‘Guide to the Young Patriarch.’ The current draft of the Guide can be found here.)

Comment: In this post tribalism is used in the most general way as a term to describe the tendency of humans to create and identify with a group. The size of the group can be a pair, family, town, race, country, etc. While tribalism is created by (and eventually creates) genetically similar groups, the interplay between tribalism and genetic homogeneity will not be discussed here.

Premise 1: All genes seek reproduction.

Premise 2: Our emotions are an expression of our genes.

Lemma 1, based on premise 1 and premise 2: Our emotions facilitate reproduction.

Premise 3: The average reproductive success for members of a group is greater than that of humans without a group (e.g. for population of 100 people, 50 collaborating as a group will reproduce more than the 50 non-collaborating).

Contention 1, based on Lemma 1 and Premise 3: Humans have an emotional tendency to desire to belong in a group.

Premise 4: Within a given group, sub-groups can be created. All groups can be seen as sub-groups of group humanity.

Corollary 1 to Premise 3: The average reproductive success for members of a sub-group is greater than that of members of the original group without affiliation to a sub-group (e.g. if the U.S. consists of 100 American citizens, and 50 of them are part of a sub-U.S. group, and thus give preferable treatment to each-other, they will have an advantage over the 50 who only identify with the U.S. group and give equal treatment to all U.S. group members.)

Contention 1, based on Corollary 1 to Premise 3 and Lemma 1: The people outside of the sub-group would tend to create a counter sub-group so as not to be in a disadvantage. Hence, creation of a sub-group creates a counter sub-group.

Corollary 1 to Contention 1: A group, or a sub-group, is defined by the people outside of the group (e.g. whiteness only has meaning if there are black people acting as a group and similarly blackness only has meaning near whites. The enclosed rich white people don’t feel white, while the poor whites which are in contact with black groups have stronger white identification.)

Corollary 2 to Contention 1: Tribalism creates a rival and is created by a rival.

Premise 5: Division of a group to sub-groups weakens the group against external threats, and thus lowers the average reproductive success of the group members.

Contention 2 based on Premise 5 and Corollary 1 to Premise 3: Creating a sub-group within a group yields benefits over other group members but weakens the original group. Thus, a group will stay united if unity provides advantage over external threats which is more significant than the benefits a member might obtain by joining a sub-group.

Corollary 1 to Contention 2: A group (or a sub-group) cannot stay united without an external threat, interest or a rival group.

Corollary 2 to Contention 2: If one sub-group totally destroys the rival sub-group it will no longer be united (e.g. if there was a white vs black war and  all black people were eliminated, there will be no more white identity, only sub-white-group identities such as French and English, etc., if Jews would somehow eliminate all gentiles, there will not be a Jewish identity, just spharadim and ashcenazim, etc.)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to On Tribalism

  1. Anonymous says:

    Urm, I’m a bundle of genes and have no desire to reproduce. Nice premise.

    • dicipres says:

      Premise 1 and 2 are reasonable and apply to the majority of humans. You, very probably, have a desire for sex and if you’ll have children you will have a desire to protect them. All these emotions emanate from your genes which use your emotions as a tool to facilitate genetic reproduction.

  2. Pingback: On Tribalism | Viva La Manosphere!

  3. Cogitans says:

    I like the thought processes you’ve laid out. I’ll be honest, while I understand, and somewhat sympathize, with tribalism in an ethnic sense, I’ve always been a bit confused when it is expanded to color, whites, asians, blacks, amerindian etc. I get that it is a motivation for some (most?) people but I have just never felt it myself. That being said, I am fully invested in trabilism of the national sort and sympathize greatly with the Europeans who feel that their sovereignty is being overtruned via government enforced multiculturalism.

  4. Some of your most compelling logic. Perhaps @Anonymous is young and opines prematurely. I have recently thought through all this for myself, in the past year or two. Sub-group explotation has big implications on morality, patriotism, ethics, etc. Let’s just say I am looking for my own rival sub-group and the sphere gives me hope. This is an important topic.

    Points meant to be constructive:

    (1) Corollary 1 to Contention 2 I believe should be modified. Humanity or the universe of human individuals is the only group that is not a sub-group. Humanity faces non-human external threat, like an asteroid or black hole hitting earth, but I think you mean: A SUB-group cannot exist without A RIVAL SUB-GROUP.
    (2) I wonder if sub-groups can co-exist without rivalry, like bus drivers and school teachers. In a free market, individuals are free to change, and required to constructively maintain, their sub-group affiliation. In a tribe there are functional divisions that cooperate. Are they sub-groups?
    (3) Corollary 2 to Contention 2 I believe could be modified. The winning sub-group is not destroyed. Winning is good. Might makes right. The culture and identity of the group is moribund and will evolve.
    (4) Evolution requires conflict and pruning. Elimination of tribal conflict does not eliminate conflict. Thus, tribal conflict is not necessarily bad. Free enterprise could be seen as an ecosystem of economic tribes. There could be construed an implication here that ending sub-group conflict would end conflict and result in unity. Morally sound group behavior code constructively ends destructive behavior and prunes destructive and weak replicating units (genes and memes) in the long like nothing else.

    • dicipres says:

      Thanks for the comments.

      Regarding (1): I eliminated the “exists” term and changed Corollary 1 to Contention 2 to increase clarity.

      Regarding (2), that’s an interesting point. I would say that a section of the group turns into a sub-group when the members identify and support the sub-group more than they identify and support the original group. A bus-drivers union may riot, go on strike and use its power to cause damage to the other members of the state (e.g. pay unrealistically high bus fare) just to give benefits to its members. In this case the bus-driver union may be viewed as a sub-group and the counter sub-group is everyone that is not a member of the union. In any case the bus-driver union is very small and is not a significant threat to the unity of the original group (state). Also, the members of the union don’t have a racial, ethnic or geographic connection, and it is thus a pretty limited sub-group.

      Regarding (3): I meant to discuss the unity of a winning sub-group which is eliminated since the rival is eliminated. I changed Corollary 2 to Contention 2 to improve the clarity of the argument.

      Regarding (4): I agree.

  5. Mark Flowers says:

    1. Mark Flowers is a true dedicated Christian but a non denominational and non church going Christian, a praying man upon his knees and he gives all credit to his survival to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as his savoir and protector of him and his loved ones. Mark has to continually break all curses in Jesus Christ’s name, sent by witch craft and the Satanic agenda.

    2. Mark Flowers is a fighter, a man that will never bow to any evil corruption, to DEATH.

    3. Mark Flowers has had the fatherhood of his children stolen by the masons / system / The Australian Government.

    4. Mark Flowers is a survivor of more than a decade of intense murderous Freemasonry Gang Stalking {a term he coined} and raised in the Federal Magistrates Court Parramatter Sydney Australia in 2009 & 2010 whilst defending his rights to father his children.

    5. Mark Flowers has had so many attempts on his life in the process of Freemasonry gangstalking that they are too numerous to list, most have been whilst driving in road traffic accident setups by gangstalkers . But all manner of threats have come against Mark Flowers, One time a sour mason wielding a hammer at Mark’s head got a lesson in respect and kicked off Mark’s property. The police always fail to follow such death threats against Mark Flowers.

    6. Mark Flowers has self-represented in some 60 appearances in the Federal Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court in Australia and all with nil formal education, in fact Mark left school at 14 years and first job was in a lumber yard.

    7. Mark Flowers is a Father first, and a former children’s safety film producer, but the dogs of gangstalking were released on him for doing so. Mark has been fighting ever since and will never give in, as the eternity in spirit and fear of God through Christ Jesus motivates him to be fearless against evil.

    If I fall in this good fight it will be into the arms of my saviour Jesus Christ.

    Brother Mark

    http://www.markflowers.org/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s