The future is filled with them.
Survival is in the gaps.
To be followed by Unintended Consequences….or a new Dark Age…
An author who gets the failings of collectives and colonies in the context of survival.
It’s also the reason why a military command style colony with families may survive but WON’T flourish.
Fred Reed’s latest is a good supplement to Gore’s piece.
Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..
Tribes are part of being human. They work reasonably well when the tribe is 150 or fewer individuals (about the limit where everybody can know everybody) but they don’t scale well. That is, the features that made them useful at small size are overwhelmed by the drawbacks when they get large.
Disappointing. The worst thing he has ever written. At least, that I have read. I have considered his books. I am no longer. He should stick to economic treachery. I have read great things from him on that subject. This article is just a rant against tribe. A factually incorrect one, and much of it just does not follow. His conclusion seems to be, don’t belong to a tribe. Which is suicidal. Good luck with that. The lead says “survival is in the gaps”. Sorry, but in this case, not belonging to a tribe means that “death is in the gaps”.
Besides the overall incoherent nature of this essay, I want to examine some of the faulty talking points he brought up, as they are peeves of mine.
First, the Muslim European Crusade issue is not even debatable. The Muslims started invading what was left of the Roman Republic after its decline and failure. The Crusades were a very late, and fractured, response to take the battle to them. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y for a good primer on this.
Next, another thing that bugs me is that the author keeps going on about the perceived faults of tribalism and hints that his individuality is somehow superior. Really? You have got to be kidding me. Take the above example of Muslim/Crusade issue. Does anyone believe that a wanker Libertarian giving a speech about free trade and individuality would stop an ISIS soldier / or a Barbary pirate / an Ottoman soldier / or a Spanish Moor from slitting their throat when met with face to face? Or that an individual without tribe would successfully repel such an attack and maintain free trade routes and all the Libertarian personal individualism that the author cares about? Nope. Not a chance. Here is a clue: most economic free trade stopped because the Muslims killed and pillaged everyone they found on the high seas who was not a Muslim. They did not give a damn that they felt entitled to trade with other tribes. The dark ages were caused more by Muslims destroying free trade than they were by the fall of the Romans. Further, today’s current economic issues are exacerbated by the crisis that globalism has created in regards to the Muslim invading hoard. Tomorrow’s failure of nation states will be almost solely because of this and cultural rot from attacks against the nation state’s primary tribal identity.
Third, the author ventures into arguments about slavery and white guilt, claiming these are tribal issues and indicates that somehow we are all above that by not belonging to tribe. He does not say how this is, however- and the reality of the human experience does not offer anything to shed further light on this novel idea that we would function better without tribe.
I know there are those here who flirt with anarchy, but it is childish nonsense. Anarchy and the absence of tribe will not get you civilization. It never has– not once. I will explain this for even the dumbest dullard anarchist who cannot count– trying to maintain the personal relationships needed to maintain even a basic standard of living in a anarchy environment is a hockey stick proposition. You don’t have the time to scale it personally. That is why we have tribes, nations, and even corporations to simplify these things. That is why some call government a natural monopoly. Society is not possible without tribe. To attempt to redefine these terms or to cherry pick data absolves the anarchist who believes in this autistic wankery.
Back to the article. Here are some facts for the author: The Jews and the Black Muslims are the source that sold blacks into slavery. Not Americans. We were just one of many nations that bought them (and we were not even an independent nation when the slave trade started). Admittedly, this was the hugest mistake America ever made. The Muslims sold over 2.5 million European whites into slavery to the Ottoman Empire as well. So the popular impression that whites (or even worse, white Americans) were all responsible for slavery is horse poo. Among the ranks of whites were the victims of slavery as well.
Regardless, none of this can be laid at the feet of tribalism itself. What is exclusively the fault of one tribe, is not the sin of another. Such a faulty concept would violate individual accountability as well, so the author should know better.
This lack of even caring what the facts are, because he is not interested in tribalism (or collectivism as he calls it)– is seriously sloppy thinking. It amounts to “If we destroyed all of humanity and replaced ourselves with robots we would not need be concerned about who is right and wrong. We can just say it is all wrong and the robot overlords are right and the way forward.” Not only is it inaccurate in fact, but it has terrible consequences if followed.
Next the author gets into black reparations. Somehow, in the author’s mind– this is also the fault of tribe. What? Maybe, like a ladder falling on one’s head is the fault of gravity. Personally, I would say it was the fault of the one who did not secure the ladder. Likewise, I would blame reparations on Marxists agitators and not the concept of tribe. Now, I could really give two craps what the AmerHutu’s think white America owes them. They have had 50+ years of reparations (called welfare) already. They are not the better for any of it. By the way, good luck getting the Turks to give reparations to Europe for invading and stealing 2.5+ million people and killing countless more. Good luck explaining to them that European colonization was the only thing that kept them from killing each other and that we actually did them a favor (after they warred with us for over a thousand years and lost against and again, eventually in WWI ). Good luck explaining to AmerHutu’s that the colored people with the highest standard of living are in the FUSA and that they stand far more of a chance at being killed by another AmerHutu than a white cop. Good luck with all that. Hey, I know– let’s not worry about the details and facts of who did what. Let’s blame it all on the fact that we belong to tribes, and swear off tribes. Facepalm.
I am sorry, but the author sounds like a cucked man suffering from white guilt from reading too much Marxist globalist agiprop. Last week I saw a globalist rag declare that nations where the worst idea ever. Same crap. This white guilt happens to white kids in public schools as well. Some eventually go crazy and exhibit their mental illness through various forms of self-hatred. Some even suffer an eventual psychotic break and create an alternate reality where they try to function. On the Marxist controlled TV there are at least two such who claim to be “trans-racial” and pretend they are black, even though they are white. Of course, the Marxists hold them up as hero’s. In the authors case, his alternate reality is pretending that humans are not naturally tribal, which is not found or heard of in the history of any group of humanity– ever. It would have been more logical for him to have pretended to be a black woman living in a white man’s body.
Now lets focus on reality, instead of the author’s deluded reality state. Humans are tribal. If tribe is so unimportant, then why have the Marxists successfully attacked, vilified, and destroyed the tribal identify of the WASPs who created America and made it great? They destroyed this tribe, because by doing so they knew they were destroying America. And they have.
Why do the feds infiltrate every patriot group? To destroy tribe by creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) as to the intentions of other tribal members (gathering intel is just a useful side effect).
Why have the feminists focused on getting themselves into every traditional male tribal gathering (from the board room, to the locker room, to Augusta, to eliminating the barber shop). Because they want to cuck and control men and they cannot do that without destroying their male tribal bonding patterns (which they call the patriarchy).
Want to know why the III %ers and the Oath Keeps, and the Ron Paul Libertarians have never and will likely never amount to a hill of beans? They have no real tribe. Tribe does not happen on the Internets. It happens in the real world. When you sweat and work with groups of like-minded kinfolk. Without that, you have no tribe.
It is true that tribe’s think alike and that this can result in group-think. It has to be guarded against. Throwing out a tribe as an “unthinking collective” because of this possibility, is the cliched equivalent of throwing out your baby with the dirty bath water. It solves the problem– no more dirty baby. But who is going to wash and watch your ass when you get old? No one will do that as well as kin would. Don’t believe me, go to the old folks home and look around. You won’t see much tribe there, just lots of suffering.
Without male tribe, you have no tribe as well. Tribal creation is the domain of males, stemming from hunting and gathering in the wild. Women fall into their family groups. When a man is so cucked he needs his wife’s, or his jobs (and soon his governments) permission to spend time with friends and speak his own mind in public, what chance do any of these organizations have of developing real tribe? None.
Risk taking is essential to tribal (or national) success. Risk taking is the prerogative of males in society. No male tribe, no risk taking. No risk taking, no advancement, and shortly no tribe. In order to have a successful tribe, you have to have male tribe. Feminists have destroyed this in the FUSA.
Lastly, You have to have healthy tribes in order to have any significant level of trade. Without tribe, the risks are too great to engage in such trade. Run across one bad group of guys– and they will steal your stuff and slit your throat. You need a tribe to back you up. No tribe, no significant trade.
You want ultimate individuality? You will live a short and dirty existence by yourself without help from others. You are a social creature. You can be an individual. In fact, to be useful to a tribe, you must have individual characteristics such as integrity and loyalty. But to reach your ultimate state, as an individual– you must be an interdependent part of several groups: Your family, Your tribes. This is not to say that all are equal, or that there are not winners and losers as individuals, and that we should not be treated as such economically. Or that we are not different as individuals. We are. But we are not complete and will never achieve our full potential without belonging to a tribe.
Divided as individuals, we will not stand against the Marxists, and the Muslims (not too mention the portion of AmerHutu’s and Hispanic invaders the Marxist’s have co-opted by giving them free stuff they stole from us). They have marked us as the enemy, they are literally coming to kill us. Put aside the nerdy academic Libertarian horse crap the author is dishing out, and get your tribe going before it is too late. If it is not already.
Supremely well stated, I tip my hat.
Tribes: the cockroach of human organization.
At what point do friends and family cooperating become a tribe? Is it insularity? Poverty to calorie-shortage, mate collectivism? Leadership by threat of violence internally?
Unfortunately, they may be essential to get yourself and your family through a population bottleneck any-time-now.
1) Sins of the father…which I suppose only makes sense in a Christian worldview.
2) While perhaps not morally culpable, the previous generations greatly influence the circumstances of the current one. We are not absolved of the consequences of their actions. While pontification about morality is nice, in the real world who your daddy was or what he did or who he owes money to DOES matter. Just ask Trump. Tribes are an extension of your family, and in every culture you take credit/blame for your collective nuclear and often extended family. Blood is thicker than water? Family honor? The very existence of these idioms and ideas screams Robert is mistaken. The existence of a nuclear family and the very biochemistry of humans points to the fact that we are hardwired to protect our family and have affection for them. We call those without this hardwiring sociopaths and consider it a mental illness. This would seem to be a universal human condition spanning every modern and pre-modern culture that I’m aware of on the seven continents. Logical it is not, reality it is, young Skywalker.
3) If tribal rule is inherently unstable, then why did nation-states EVOLVE from coalescence of tribes and not start as the default and DEVOLVE as human history progressed? For the larger part of human history we have seen small local tribes gradually coalesce into regions, small kingdoms and eventually empires. The first 4800 years of recorded history bear this out, but forget all that and let’s look at the last 200. I’d hardly consider China’s 4,000 year history inherently unstable, or Japan, or Rome, or Egypt. The nation state evolved as an answer to a population explosion without the technological means to govern large areas. Talk to me in another 4,000 years and if they still exist, then we can debate whether individualism is the natural default. Right now I believe my lying eyes.
A few points about your response.
You seem to be substituting the term tribe with government on the topic of trade. A powerful government can look after its interests probably better than a tribe can. There are collectivist (tribal if you must) aspects to a government building and maintaining a legal system while building and maintaining the power to support it, sure. Bt that government can be stuctured to honor individual rights as well. The author uses American government as an example of this.
Your assumption that untimate individuality will turn us into cavemen is sort of nuts. Do you really believe that civil society wouldnt exist, as it does and as it has done, thanks to the near certain benefits of voluntary cooperation? Again- the author manages to equate his idea of individualism with the enlightenment/renaissance/American Revolution. Your definition of tribal vs individual seems to conflate collective with cooperative. Maybe thats one reason you dislike this idea so much?
The author also, at least in my eyes, appears to realize that tribal aspects of society that creep up in an individualist society can be damning for that whole arrangement. He mentions these collectivist attacks specifically as racial movements within America to push for reparations and preferential treatment. This kind of thing nearly ensures the formation of collectives. Is the intelligent move recognize yourself as part of another, reactionary collective? Safe, maybe even necessary? I dont disagree. In (in what’s probably the opinion of most libertarians and anarchists, anyways) a perfect world, though, the reactionary collective (if you must) would be of a mind that self determination and individual responsiblity and guilt are honored, and could carry on their civil day to day with that in mind. If that collective isnt powerful enough, or if its attacked violently enough (and it probably is rn), maybe its time to ‘tribe up’.
I’m hearing you there and the author might hear you if he heard you. But I think that the libertarian horsecrap and the anarchist idealism (and shit lets just spit on the III% and Oathkeeper movements while we’re at it) are probably best if your tribe becomes the civilized world.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,653 other followers